Private gun ownership is illegal in Venezuela.
Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.
(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)
Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.
(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)
Are you claiming a causal relationship? Demonstrate there aren't any third variables that could be responsible.
“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.”
“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.”
“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.”
“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.”
Private gun ownership is illegal in Venezuela.
Are you claiming a causal relationship? Demonstrate there aren't any third variables that could be responsible.
He's claiming that outlawing private gun ownership has not slowed record-breaking gun violence in that country.
Which is precisely what the American gun controllers are claiming they can do through legislation.
There is no need for him to show any "third variables". That would be the responsibility of your side.
He has not demonstrated that Venezuela and the US are analogous. Also, Jazz has been putting forth this idea that limiting private gun ownership causally increases violence. If he makes that claim, he must provide the evidence. Yes, he is the one that must show there is no third variable and that the two situations are analogous.
“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.”
“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.”
I work in the environment we are discussing, and understand the security and safety issues. You do not. You speak in theory.
That makes you much less qualified to discuss school security than the school janitor.
An experienced teacher who has worked in 4 elementary schools and two high schools in 3 different districts.
Which give you very limited knowledge about school security or no knowledge on guns.
I fail to see the correlation between entitled union teachers (whatever that means) and them "knowing everything," nor do I see why you'd launch such an attack. It doesn't even make sense.
You know nothing. You have no idea who I am. You simply don't like that my opinion is far more qualified than yours.
You are not a stakeholder, not to me. You are simply someone with an opinion. And even if you were a stakeholder, that doesn't make your opinion equally qualified to mine. Do you tell your teachers what their curriculum should be? Would you presume to lecture me on the subject I teach? Would you tell a principal how to go about her job? Do you tell your school custodian how to maintain the HVAC system? If you do, you're unfortunately like several parents I've met in my career. You having children does not make you an expert in education, nor does it give you a solid understanding of what the security situation is in most schools.
What do I know about you? You're a teacher that doesn't believe that parents are stakeholders in either their children's education or security. A person who as never fired a gun or been fired upon who believes their opinion on firearms is superior to everyone else. A person who emotionally believes they are suddenly defenseless in their school and therefore needs to carry a gun even though the odds that you will be victim of a home invasion (low) is several orders of magnitude higher than being within 100 miles of a mass school shooting (insanely low) and yet never bothered to pick a gun before.
And I'm supposed to think that you would have the preserverence to become a good shooter, get the necessary combat stress training and stay proficient to defend other peoples kids when you never had the foresight to defend your own family despite the higher risks of violence in your own home?
And you STILL think you have the vaguest clue about security and other people should shut the hell up and defer to your opinion because you're a teacher?
LOL.
Actually, my opinion is more qualified than yours but it's hard to prove that anonymously. I've worked on EMS systems and done simulated disaster crisis planning as part of my job. The scenarios ranged from nuclear disasters to school shootings like Columbine. I'm not a SME but you need to learn quite a bit of domain knowledge to develop the software systems supporting first responders including getting firearms and explosive familiarization training which was probably the most fun aspect of that job.
An appeal to your authority as a teacher might work on 6 year olds but even there probably not over the internet.
It may appear that I am anti-gun control...I'm not. Rational additions to current gun ownership requirements, whether small like requiring verification of training and registration or large like Australian gun laws are welcome.
It may appear that I am anti-concealed carry by teachers or administrators...I'm not. But I would require the same amount of training as is required by pilots which wish to carry. A process that is known to be expensive and only some small percentage of pilots do.
What I am against is the kabuki security like an assault weapons ban that doesn't include handguns (pointless because handguns are equally effective in these kinds of shootings) or ineffective policies like arming school principles or teachers (ineffective without the level of training and commitment unlikely to be found in such a program) or putting a security guard in each school (costly and ineffective since we end up with TSA level security in schools).
Bad security is worse than no security because it leads to a false sense of safety and allows politicians (and ourselves) off the hook to address the underlying issue by making a showy quick fix that doesn't do anything but spends a lot of money and energy on kabuki security because we won't actually adopt security that works (i.e. El Al vs TSA) but will adopt security that doesn't work but annoys normal people.
That makes you much less qualified to discuss school security than the school janitor.
If that's your conclusion, than you're more misinformed than I originally thought.
Which give you very limited knowledge about school security or no knowledge on guns.
I have limited knowledge and experience with guns. Working in a variety of schools has allowed me to have quite a bit of experience with security, from participating in drills of many kinds, to having to evacuate a building, to participating in revisions of procedures.
I didn't say that. I said you were not a stakeholder to me. I further took issue with your the qualification of your opinion.
I have not fired a gun or been fired upon. I also do not believe my opinion is "superior" to everyone else. I do think I am more qualified to opine on the matter than you are.
Oh boy. Emotionally? No. I'm telling you...we are defenseless, especially against the kind of attack that happened recently. And I never said I wanted to carry a gun to school.
I don't know what you are supposed to think. Since you really don't know me or my personality, I'd say your opinion of my ability to focus and perseverance is pretty worthless.
And you STILL think you have the vaguest clue about security and other people should shut the hell up and defer to your opinion because you're a teacher?
LOL.
I much more than a vague clue when it comes to the security situation in schools like mine. I live it every day.
That would be like me saying I know the security in your house better than you.
Good. I respect that. That means you are well trained to respond to disasters. It doesn't mean anything when it comes to specific vulnerabilities we face. It doesn't mean anything when it comes to defending students and staff against an armed lunatic who shot his way in.
Wow, I really touched a nerve with you, hmm? Let me be clear. I am saying my qualifications as a teacher make my opinion more qualified than yours. I am saying that working in schools for nearly 15 years does.
You are lying. This is typical. I have addressed Somalia with you. I've tried to engage you with that subject and explain things to you in order to elevate your incredibly simplistic and superficial "analysis" and you've ignored this. Which is also typical. You are a liar.
The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.
The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.
An intriguing proposition. How does the government exert any control over the country when it seems that it has not part in it at all? And if it does, where does it derive its revenue to facilitate its governance?
Also in regards to Somalia I would claim complete ignorance in regards to its governance as all we hear is regarding the atrocities that are occurring and then extrapolate that this is what the norm in Somalia is. Also not down playing that some seriously bad shit is going down in Somalia either.
There is no government (outside of warlord imposed local regulation) in Somalia.
That's the point. That's exactly the "solution" the Libertarian anarcho-capitalists propose, believe it or not!
They have developed a complete blind spot to the fact that under such a situation, the only historical result, and the only foreseeable result, is feudal (warlord) society.
If that's your conclusion, than you're more misinformed than I originally thought.
Really? Do you know which doors and windows are in good repair and which are flakey? Do you know where all the security cameras and systems are located? Which of you regularly sees all of the school including service areas? You or the school custodian?
In schools without dedicated security staff who makes sure the building is secure and sets the end of day alarms long after all the staff has gone home and the school closes for the night?
Is that you? Or the janitor?
I have limited knowledge and experience with guns. Working in a variety of schools has allowed me to have quite a bit of experience with security, from participating in drills of many kinds, to having to evacuate a building, to participating in revisions of procedures.
This is like claiming you have knowledge or experience in fire fighting because you've done school fire drills.
I didn't say that. I said you were not a stakeholder to me. I further took issue with your the qualification of your opinion.
Parents are often LEOs, Fire Fighters or other domain experts with knowledge far in advance of any teacher EVEN on their own turf whether that is the school grounds or a subject area.
I have not fired a gun or been fired upon. I also do not believe my opinion is "superior" to everyone else. I do think I am more qualified to opine on the matter than you are.
In what way are you more qualified to opine on the matter than any given parent? Do you believe that they have less at stake than you do in the safety of their children? Given you don't know the level of expertise of anyone on the internet neither can you claim that whomever you are discussing the topic with does not have expertise on a subject. Strangely as it may seem to you but many school districts, including my own, have parents, teachers, administrators, custodial staff and law enforcement on their school security JTF.
They are all stakeholders and the only ones MORE qualified to speak to school security than anyone else are the LEOs on the JTF (excluding the parents who might be SMEs in specific areas but that's luck of the draw).
Oh boy. Emotionally? No. I'm telling you...we are defenseless, especially against the kind of attack that happened recently. And I never said I wanted to carry a gun to school.
You are not defenseless unless your school district has particularly poor security. Given what you wrote you have good passive defenses. Depending on your school there will probably be police nearby able to respond quickly and that's something they train for so you have an active defense as well, just not on-site all the time. Which works large amounts of the time against most threats.
Schools that face more active threats have more on-site active security.
All security a tradeoff in terms of cost vs risk. Even parents do this. I maybe could afford a bodyguard for my kids. Not a very good one for $20 an hour to drive them to school and activities. But that would mean not being able to afford said activities, save for college or retirement, selling the house for an apartment, etc. Do you think it would be wise to spend 50%+ of my net take-home for the marginal increase in security of a bodyguard for my kids? I'm not rich. I'm not important. I don't live in Mexico. The answer is no because the risks, while severe if they were to happen, aren't very likely.
Risk = severity * probability. The risk at your school is very very low. You are not defenseless. You're just responding emotionally.
As for never wanting a gun in school:
I'm a teacher and I've never considered having one. But I'll tell you this...if I'm ever in this situation, I want one. Had I been there with a gun, it would have stopped. I guaran-fucking-tee you that.
You didn't write this testosterone fueled gun fantasy piece? Thus far in this thread there is maybe one civ qualified to carry a gun in a school and that's a very very qualified maybe based purely on my personal experience with people with a CPLs...which is probably heavily skewed in the wrong direction since most holders I know are ex-LEOs because I live in a may issue state. And that's FloorJack.
And he's right...in many states CPL training is a joke and anyone armed in a school should be trained as well as a LEO. This costs money, time and commitment. More time, money and commitment than you seem to understand. He and I may or may not disagree on some things but we agree on this (including the requirement that they carry and are trained in a non-lethal option).
Arming volunteer school administrators and teachers is doable like arming pilots. It is even a decent idea. It's just not going to provide very good coverage and is going to cost money.
Note that the Gun Free School Zone Act does not prohibit armed teachers at the federal level. That means you only need to convince local legislators to allow it and pay for it.
I am not well trained to respond to disasters. I am well (or was when I was doing it...it is a perishable knowledge set) trained to write software for folks that respond to events. That means I did need to know about specific vulnerabilities they face in their jobs or I couldn't have done mine.
Wow, I really touched a nerve with you, hmm? Let me be clear. I am saying my qualifications as a teacher make my opinion more qualified than yours. I am saying that working in schools for nearly 15 years does.
Except not so much. And even if that was true specifically in my case it's STILL not true for all parents or even all participants on this thread. What you write is still an appeal to authority and not a very good one at that. I might buy it if you were a LEO or even served on your districts security advisory board or something. But as your average teacher? LOL, no.
There is no government (outside of warlord imposed local regulation) in Somalia.
That's the point. That's exactly the "solution" the Libertarian anarcho-capitalists propose, believe it or not!
They have developed a complete blind spot to the fact that under such a situation, the only historical result, and the only foreseeable result, is feudal (warlord) society.
Excellent post tonton!
Really? Do you know which doors and windows are in good repair and which are flakey?
Not relevant to the discussion we're having. That's a facilities issue and a mechanical issue.
No.
I see the entire building regularly, including most of the service areas with the exception of the loading area and roof.
The custodial staff. Again how is that relevant? What does that have to do with potentially arming administrators?
This is like claiming you have knowledge or experience in fire fighting because you've done school fire drills.
No, it would be like claiming I understand drill procedures because I take part in...drill procedures.
OK.
Because the parent is not in the building and does not see the movement of students, where they sit. They generally don't know the safety procedures like we do. You know, because we like...work here? :)
No.
I never claimed that I had a law enforcement background or anything of the like. Obviously LEOs have specific training. That being said, this doesn't make them experts in school security, particularly in one setting other another. In fact, I just learned that we will have LEOs observing a drill for the first time ever. Why do you suppose that might be? Do you think it could be learn about our procedures?
I am not getting into the proverbial urination contest concerning who knows more...me or a given LEO.
This is what you don't understand. Almost all districts have particularly poor security, because almost all districts lack the ability to respond to a deadly threat immediately.
It worked great in Newtown, didn't it? It's my entire point.
That seems reasonable, but I don't know if it's true. I also don't see what that has to do with our discussion.
We are defenseless in the event a Newtown-like event occurs. And we all know it.
As for never wanting a gun in school:
You didn't write this testosterone fueled gun fantasy piece?
I did. It's simply the truth.
Great...why does that matter?
I don't accept your premise that anyone armed needs to be as well trained and equipped as a LEO. I'm suggesting certain people should have at least access to a weapon of some kind, perhaps even a non-lethal weapon.
I'm not suggesting that.
.
True, though again, that wasn't my suggestion.
OK. I may have been a bit hasty then. I got the impression you were speaking only as a parent.
This is not a hard concept to grasp. I work in schools every day. I understand the security situation better than most parents, regardless of background. That is because I'm in the situation every day. I know drill procedures, class procedures and routines, etc. I have administrative training that includes responding to issues such as bomb threats, shootings, etc. I am not proclaiming myself to be a "school security expert," nor am I saying parents have no say in what procedures are in place. My initial comment was made on the assumption that you were claiming parents in general knew as much about the security situation in my building (and others) as I do. That is not true. Parents have input and obviously have a vested interest, but they also don't have the day-to-day knowledge we have.
I was laughing with him, not at him (as you well know.) And the difference between the situation in Somalia and the U.S. is pretty much the values espoused by the majority religions in both countries.
I like how you are basically blaming Islam for Somalia's situation and not the lack of any government that does shit.
“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.”
“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.”
I was laughing with him, not at him (as you well know.) And the difference between the situation in Somalia and the U.S. is pretty much the values espoused by the majority religions in both countries.
I like how you are basically blaming Islam for Somalia's situation and not the lack of any government that does shit.
I don't know that I'd blame religion exclusively. The problem with the comparison is that the culture, history and values are completely different
Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.
(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)
Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.
(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)
Tell you what, you get a gun and I get a katana. A fight to the death, up for it? I can survive a gunshot wound. You obviously don't know much about knives or guns.
So, katanas for everyone? Is that what you're saying?
“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.”
“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.”
This whole gun control debate is silly. NONE of the proposed gun regulations would have prevented the shootings at sandy hook. What would have helped? The solution is simple, Architecture. ALL security measures start with Architecture. Many security features based in architecture can be implemented quickly and inexpensively. Some of these are as simple as Solid wood doors,and emergency exits.
Or, you know, no guns. Also, if a katana is a knife, then a fishing boat is a bowl.
“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.”
“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.”
This has always been the point I make. You can't have a drive by knifing go through a wall and collaterally kill a sleeping infant in his/her crib. Guns are more dangerous.
Classy, classy guy:
Make sure to watch the un-edited version where he says he's going to start shooting people.
Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"
You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."
Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"
You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."
Another shooting.
A student took a shotgun to school, shot a student.
He was stopped by two school staff members...who were unarmed. He was in a classroom with 28 kids. Another gun would not have helped. Period.
The school has an armed guard (who actually wasn't there at the time)... and the student more than likely would have known. Did knowing there was an armed guard at the school deter him? Could he have known the guard wasn't there that day?
Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"
You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."
Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"
You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."
Another gun would not have helped. Period.
How nice of you to give us your opinion and declare it to be an indisputable fact.
The school has an armed guard (who actually wasn't there at the time)...
Well, I guess that won't work now will it. In other news: Doors that are not locked are less likely to keep intruders out.
and the student more than likely would have known.
And a smattering of conjecture for good measure.
Did knowing there was an armed guard at the school deter him? Could he have known the guard wasn't there that day?
Well you seem to have all of the answers. Why don't you tell us?
But more importantly, I don't believe that most folks have argued that armed guards would necessarily be a deterrent (though sometimes it might be.) This would be impossible to prove if it was. The argument has been that an armed guard could potentially be a defense mechanism.
The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.
The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.
Jazzguru plagiarized this about a week ago. He still hasn't come forward to admit where it came from. I've found the source. Let's see if he admits where he got it from.
“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.”
“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.”
I'm still trying to understand why people are focusing on an inanimate object and not on how and why individuals are using that object to harm others.
In virtually every one of these shootings, the shooter is on mind-altering medications or drugs or has a history of psychological and mental problems.
Americans consume more psychotropic drugs than any other country in the world.
Why does this aspect of the problem seem to be ignored by gun control advocates?
Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.
(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)
Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.
(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)
Why won't you cite your source?
“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.”
“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.”
NRA - A clear and present danger to national security?
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/ct-perspec-0110-nra-20130111,0,4736888.story
Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"
You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."
Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"
You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."
Why don't they start to look into if these students were on some kind of drugs regarding their mental thinking and see what makes these students do what they are doing.Most of these drugs being for the mentally ill are ruining their minds and provoking them to do these killings and shootings in today's society.They are over medicated like the animal Adam Lanza who was on medication most of his life.This is never discussed why?
