Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Things we'd be talking about if the forum wasn't deadFollow

#4777 Feb 27 2018 at 11:47 AM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
13,666 posts
Jophiel wrote:
someproteinguy wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Cost us nothing.
Still can't wrap my head around this part. There's no way this doesn't get caught up in miles of red tape and political drama.
[...]
It's probably cheaper to just hire a couple of additional police officers and have them stationed at the school during the day.

What you'll never see though is a GOP push for increased funding for school counselors and psychologists despite the "This is really a mental health issue" canard. Always room for more guns though!
Well sure guns are super-effective at treating mental health problems. One clean shot and no one has to worry that you feel sad any more! Smiley: rolleyes
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#4778 Feb 27 2018 at 2:08 PM Rating: Good
*******
50,767 posts
I think anyone that volunteers to spend a minimum of $700 a year for their job with absolutely no reimbursement or compensation should be treated for mental health problems.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#4779 Feb 27 2018 at 2:24 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
13,666 posts
But if you can get 3 other people to sign up to carry guns on campus that will be $900 in your pocket. You'll have actually made money with the program!
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#4780 Feb 27 2018 at 2:32 PM Rating: Excellent
*****
10,601 posts
I'm still boggled by the idea that the possibility of having someone with a gun at a school would in anyway deter some very angry student.
____________________________
01001001 00100000 01001100 01001001 01001011 01000101 00100000 01000011 01000001 01001011 01000101
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
#4781 Feb 27 2018 at 3:29 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Sir Xsarus wrote:
I'm still boggled by the idea that the possibility of having someone with a gun at a school would in anyway deter some very angry student.

It won't. This is about (A) preventing any sort of gun control reform by pretending that the solution is MOAR GUNZ and (B) an easy way to blame shift during the next tragedy where, instead of gun control, it'll be "Well, if those teachers had only gotten guns like we told them to..."

You'll notice that these ideas never come coupled with "Let's also talk about restrictions on this or that" or "Let's talk about increasing school funding for mental health and consoling programs" because it's not actually about stopping school shootings, it's about stopping gun control reform.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#4782 Feb 27 2018 at 7:19 PM Rating: Decent
Prodigal Son
******
20,643 posts
They're just looking at schoolteachers as an untapped market. How many more guns will they be able to sell when teachers will be armed? Not to mention ammo, licensing fees, etc. that go along?

But, sure, arm teachers and talk about mental health. A bill to prevent mentally unfit people from buying guns would be nice, too.
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#4783 Feb 28 2018 at 9:00 AM Rating: Good
*******
50,767 posts
Debalic wrote:
How many more guns will they be able to sell when teachers will be armed?
10%~20% of the pool of teachers would be between roughly 350,000 to 700,000. And just for the record, the NRA's Basic Pistol Shooting Course, something I can't imagine any conservative would argue against since it's necessary to prove that the gun owner is qualified to, you know, hit targets they're aiming at, costs $150 per person.

Then you have maintenance costs to clean weapons, range time and ammo because marksmanship is a perishable skill and you need pretty constant practice, practical training like room clearing and active shooter courses ...

But you know, besides all that, literally zero dollars.

Edited, Feb 28th 2018 10:10am by lolgaxe
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#4784 Feb 28 2018 at 9:53 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Ah, but if they're imaginary guns then it's zero dollars!

How much would it cost for each school to print their own "This school is FULL of guns!" sign on a sheet of office paper and tape it to the door?
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#4785 Feb 28 2018 at 10:10 AM Rating: Good
*******
50,767 posts
"Caution: These Premises Are Protected By Princess Fluffybottom, the 4th Grade Class Pet and her .45"
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#4786 Feb 28 2018 at 12:26 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
13,666 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Ah, but if they're imaginary guns then it's zero dollars!

How much would it cost for each school to print their own "This school is FULL of guns!" sign on a sheet of office paper and tape it to the door?
Depends, is Mrs. McNary going to see it? She's a bit of a raving lunatic and could make PTA meetings hell for the next 6-9 months; at least until she finds another cause to latch on to. Maybe we should budget a little bribe money for someone to distract her and tell her about the factory across town that's dumping raw sewage into the lake?

Edited, Feb 28th 2018 10:26am by someproteinguy
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#4787 Feb 28 2018 at 2:40 PM Rating: Good
****
4,135 posts
And, sometimes, teachers with a gun are a bad thing...link
____________________________
Dandruffshampoo wrote:
Curses, beaten by Professor stupidopo-opo.
Annabella, Goblin in Disguise wrote:
Stupidmonkey is more organized than a bag of raccoons.
#4788 Feb 28 2018 at 2:45 PM Rating: Good
*******
50,767 posts
See, that teacher knew he had a gun. If he didn't know he had a gun then he wouldn't have used the gun he knew he had in fear of being stopped by a gun he didn't know he had.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#4789 Feb 28 2018 at 5:13 PM Rating: Good
Worst. Title. Ever!
*****
17,302 posts
Dick's Sporting Goods says they won't sell "Assault Rifle" style weapons anymore. And that they won't sell guns to anyone under 21 regardless of local laws.

Former I understand (they can choose to sell what ever products they want), but the latter... would that hold up to any legal challenge? Part of me thinks it wouldn't. I mean, if you are selling something, and a group of people can legally buy it... seems like you'd have to sell it.
____________________________
Can't sleep, clown will eat me.
#4790 Feb 28 2018 at 5:26 PM Rating: Good
*******
50,767 posts
They'll probably get gigged for age discrimination and have to go back to selling to whatever the legal age of the state is. The real question is, after Florida, who is going to lead that charge.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#4791 Feb 28 2018 at 5:29 PM Rating: Good
Worst. Title. Ever!
*****
17,302 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
The real question is, after Florida, who is going to lead that charge.


Plumber Joe, as he wants his 14 year old son to go buy a hunting rifle and some Red Dixie Cups, and go goose hunting off of an Alaskan back porch while keeping an eye on Russia?

Some random gun rights activists who just want to prove a point.

Edited, Feb 28th 2018 6:30pm by TirithRR
____________________________
Can't sleep, clown will eat me.
#4792 Feb 28 2018 at 6:38 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Merchants aren't under any obligation to provide services based on your age. The whole film and video games rating systems are based on merchants voluntarily restricting the sale of those things to people under a certain age.

People over 40 are considered a protected class for discrimination purposes but not people under 21.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#4793 Feb 28 2018 at 7:06 PM Rating: Good
Worst. Title. Ever!
*****
17,302 posts
Still seems like one of those things that just wouldn't hold up if challenged. Can't discriminate if over 40, but under 21 is OK? Then what about the whole "age of majority" and legal adults being denied rather than possibly just children who would have a guardian able to buy it for them instead?

I won't sell you pizzas if you are under 30...
I won't sell you toilet paper if you are under 25...
I won't sell you cooking utensils if you are under 20...

Would any of those violate any specific laws? Probably not. But if someone sues a merchant because of it, seems like it'd be easy for them to argue for them to have to sell. Seems like it'd just be one of those things waiting for someone to care enough to actually take the time and effort to challenge. And Guns seem to be something that someone out there would actually care enough to do so.

I actually tried searching for whether or not anyone ever attempted to challenge the M rating on video games and stores not making a sale. But the particular search terms made it hard to get much beyond the "do violent games make us kill people?". Only remotely relevant hit in my 5 minute search was the Supreme Court striking down a California law that would limit the sale of violent video games to children, on the basis of Free Speech of the adult guardian in question.
____________________________
Can't sleep, clown will eat me.
#4794 Feb 28 2018 at 7:15 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Yeah, but that's a law prohibiting it. Generally speaking, you can refuse business with whoever you want provided it's not because they are a member of a protected class. So I can't refuse to do business with Chinese dudes but I could include Chinese dudes in a blanket ban against dealing with people under 21.

For a different example, the AARP can set a minimum age of 50 to join because they're not discriminating against people for being over 40.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#4795 Feb 28 2018 at 7:39 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
In other news, Hope Hicks is leaving the White House. As a young pretty conservative communications major, I'm sure she'll enjoy her eventual job at Fox News just fine. Hicks and the White House say it had nothing to o with her House testimony yesterday although private WH sources mention that Trump went off on her for admitting that she's told "white lies" for the president.

Although this article from earlier in the month talks about how the WH Communications department was a mess under Hicks and her being part of the whole Rob Porter scandal including writing an official White House defense for her wife-beating boyfriend probably laid the ground work for this a while ago.

Edited, Feb 28th 2018 7:50pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#4796 Feb 28 2018 at 9:01 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Friar Bijou wrote:
gbaji wrote:
We already have a massive number of laws related to what is illegal actions to do with a firearm.
The point of the discussion is getting a firearm, not what one does with it you dingleberry.


Which is why the analogy of free speech is flawed, since no one talks about placing limits on the basic capability to speak, but only on what they may do with their speech. When they may engage in speech, where, etc.

That was kinda my point. Saying "we place limits on speech, so it's ok to place limits on gun ownership" isn't correct. We only place limits on the use of speech, not the "ownership" of speech itself. We don't actually yank the vocal chords out of people whom we don't want to speak, or break their fingers so they can't type, or otherwise make it impossible for them to exercise that right. The limits on speech are more analogous to laws against use of firearms. So can't discharge in city limits, using during a crime increases the penalty, using improperly when defending oneself can result in criminal charges, brandishing it, threatening people with it, etc. All have penalties, and are all much more similar to the kinds of restrictions we place on speech.

Again. That was my point.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#4797 Feb 28 2018 at 9:17 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
someproteinguy wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Cost us nothing.
Still can't wrap my head around this part. There's no way this doesn't get caught up in miles of red tape and political drama.


Only because the same anti-gun folks will do everything they can to make it so.

Quote:
There's too many people that need to be convinced otherwise, and that's a lot of advertising dollars. There will be town halls, PTA meetings, counter-campaigns, protests. The legislation will get watered down. Even if the idea is approved you're going to have people panicking. The local school board will require additional gun safety courses, periodic mental health evaluations, firearm choice will be restricted requiring people to purchase only certain guns, etc.


Which is exactly the wrong thing for us to do. I get that there's this perception, mostly by non-gun owners, that all gun owners are these crazy folks yelling "yah-hooo!" and shooting up anything they can. The reality is that the overwhelming majority of gun owners take that ownership very seriously. They practice with their guns regularly. They maintain them. They learn about them. Most were taught proper gun handling as children. They don't see them as toys or things to treat lightly. All of those concerns are about folks assuming that a member of a school faculty will somehow magically be a greater danger to the students if he's got a gun. That's simply not true.

And frankly, it's a silly assumption. Sure, if you went in the strawman direction of paying money to put all the teachers through training and then requiring them to have access to some firearms on campus, then yeah, you'd have a bunch of scared people who don't know how to really handle guns, who will likely panic and do something stupid. But if you just allow folks who have already spend the time and effort and money to obtain a firearm on their own to bring it to the school (again, let's assume some reasonable means of securing it on site), then it's not a problem. Again, it's zero cost. And the same folks who'd be bringing guns to school would be the same people who already own guns anyway. If your concern is the faculty member deciding to commit violence with the gun, he has the ability to to that already.

I'm just not seeing a huge downside. A tiny increase in the chance someone who isn't supposed to have access to a gun manages to do so. Maybe. But any kid in the school likely has dozens of much easier ways of getting a firearm than finding some way into a secured area of campus, rummaging around inside randomly and then happening to stumble on where someone in the faculty has his gun, figuring out how to get to it (let's assume it's in a locked case), and then what? Shooting up the school? That seems pretty far fetched, versus some angry kid stealing one from his parents, or a relative, or a "friend", or buying on illegally on the street, or any of a dozen ways this could happen.


People don't just randomly stumble upon a gun and become deranged killers. And even a minor amount of intelligent securing (the same sort you're already required to do when transporting firearms in most states already), is more than sufficient to prevent plain old accidents. Again, I'm not seeing the downside here.

Quote:
It's probably cheaper to just hire a couple of additional police officers and have them stationed at the school during the day.


No, it's not. It's vastly more expensive. And, as I've pointed out repeatedly, less effective. Students know where the LEOs on campus are. And frankly, the primary purpose of those officers is to prevent your normal everyday mischief on campus. Make sure the kids aren't doing drugs openly in the quad or whatever. The point is that any kid planning an attack like this will make "wait until the cop goes on his lunch break, or is sitting in the guard room on the far side of the campus" as step one in his plan.

And to answer the previous question (cant remember who asked), yeah, the kids who do these shootings actually spend quite a bit of time planning them. They often obsess about every detail for months in advance before actually working themselves up to going through with it. So yeah, anything that might discourage them from doing so might be huge. We can't know for sure, but again, why not do this and find out?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#4798 Feb 28 2018 at 9:27 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Sir Xsarus wrote:
I'm still boggled by the idea that the possibility of having someone with a gun at a school would in anyway deter some very angry student.


Why? That's a strange thing to say. So the possibility that a store owner might be armed doesn't factor into your decision to rob the store? The possibility that a home owner might be armed doesn't affect your decision to break into his home? You're kidding right? Of course it does. It's not like these kids wake up one day, feel angry, and then pick up a gun and go to school and start shooting. That's just not the pattern we're looking at.

I'll point out again, that there's a clear demarcation in time between "these sorts of things virtually never happened", to "we're seeing one of these every year or so". Something changed in-between. Now, we can imagine that kid just magically become more violent and more likely to decide to shoot people, or we can maybe look into what legal changes occurred. I happen to think that passing a law that ensured that no one who wasn't an on duty law enforcement officer could be armed at any school might just have had something to do with it. In fact, I think it has a whole lot to do with it.

What I'm boggled by is people who think this *isn't* the case. I'm not sure if that's just short sightedness, or decades of anti-gun rhetoric insisting that guns never prevent crime speaking. It's wrong in any case. By far the most effective way to defend a space is if the people within it are armed. Period. The more people who are armed, the less likely someone will do something "bad" there. And when you don't know who is armed and who isn't, you often get the benefits of "lots of armed people in the space", even if there aren't very many ( or even if there aren't any at all). The fact that the potential bad guy has no idea how many, if any, are armed, and where they are, is a massive deterrent.

How do you not get this?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#4799 Feb 28 2018 at 9:32 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
Debalic wrote:
How many more guns will they be able to sell when teachers will be armed?
10%~20% of the pool of teachers would be between roughly 350,000 to 700,000. And just for the record, the NRA's Basic Pistol Shooting Course, something I can't imagine any conservative would argue against since it's necessary to prove that the gun owner is qualified to, you know, hit targets they're aiming at, costs $150 per person.

Then you have maintenance costs to clean weapons, range time and ammo because marksmanship is a perishable skill and you need pretty constant practice, practical training like room clearing and active shooter courses ...

But you know, besides all that, literally zero dollars.


Yes. Because the people who would choose on their own to bring their personal firearms to school would pretty specifically be the subset of folks who already own guns, already train with them, and feel confident enough in that training to do this in the first place. Even if that's only 1% of the total faculty members, it's still sufficient to act as a deterrent. The kids on school never need to see a gun, or know who has one, or even if anyone actually does. In fact, I'd recommend that the same policy for concealed carry apply in that they are not allowed to inform anyone (well, the students and faculty other than perhaps certain administrators), that they have one.

I'll repeat again that it's the uncertainty that makes this work. Even if zero of the teachers at your kids school have a gun, the students wont know this. It'll be just as effective as at a school where there's a dozen faculty members bringing firearms to school. No one would know either way, so it works.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#4800 Feb 28 2018 at 9:33 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
So the possibility that a store owner might be armed doesn't factor into your decision to rob the store?

Well, there were over 25,000 convenience store and gas station robberies in 2016 so, uh, probably not too much.

Just because I'm a curious fellow, I checked and the US had one convenience store or gas station robbery per 8,500 people in 2008. Canada, where gun laws are stricter and you can't just keep a 9mm in the cash drawer, had one store/station robbery per 9,450 people in 2008 (I only picked 2008 because I could find official stats for both nations for that year). Granted, we can find other potential differences between the two nations but it certainly would appear that the much greater chance of finding a store clerk with a pistol wasn't a significant robbery deterrent in the United States.

[Edit: Corrected numbers since I accidentally divided by the US's 2016 population rather than 2008]

Edited, Feb 28th 2018 10:07pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#4801 Feb 28 2018 at 11:18 PM Rating: Good
Repressed Memories
******
21,027 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
Then you have maintenance costs to clean weapons, range time and ammo because marksmanship is a perishable skill and you need pretty constant practice, practical training like room clearing and active shooter courses ...

Most of the licensed gun owners I know treat their weapons like toys and don't maintain them, so I doubt they'll make fees there.
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 331 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (331)