Shooter dead, two injured after shooting at Great Mills High School in Maryland

[DocM]

On 3/25/2018 at 12:31 PM, FloatingFatMan said:

They instruct, senator's vote as per instructions.  For all intents and purposes, owned is correct.

 

You've got that bass ackwards, and its not just the NRA. 

 

NRA only gives about $1m a year in candidate donations nationwide, at all levels. $1,085,100 in the 2016 elections and $334,768 so far this year ( opensecrets.org ). Of that a small amount goes to individual politicians; $64.7k in 2016, $10.5k this year.

 

NRA, which has 5+ million members in both parties, spends most its political money on PACs & lobbies (just like anti-gun folks) informing gun owners of what their reps are doing in DC and the states, and it's those voters who rain holy hell down on their congresscritters.

 

Now add about 100 other groups, some  nearly as large as NRA, and said congresscritters pay attention.

Edited March 27, 2018 by DocM

[FloatingFatMan]

7 hours ago, Emn1ty said:

Why are you outright rejecting posting an on-site first responder? Why is that a bad thing? You haven't really explained that part.

I didn't outright reject a first responder, at all.  I merely say that it's not a solution and will just perpetuate the current state of affairs.

[Emn1ty]

1 minute ago, FloatingFatMan said:

I didn't outright reject a first responder, at all.  I merely say that it's not a solution and will just perpetuate the current state of affairs.

Your statement is a contradiction. You say you're not rejecting it, but you're also saying it's not a solution. Why is it not solution?

[FloatingFatMan]

Just now, Emn1ty said:

Your statement is a contradiction. You say you're not rejecting it, but you're also saying it's not a solution. Why is it not solution?

It's not a contradiction, and it's not solution because, as I already quite clearly stated already, it merely perpetuates the current state of affairs.  Having armed guards might save a few lives (assuming the armed guard doesn't run away with the rest), but it's just putting a bandage over a gaping wound without first using stitches.  The only real solution is to actually fix the problems turning your society into a survivalists worst nightmare.

 

No other school in the western world has to have armed guards in its schools, or even on-site police stations, metal detectors, drug searches and all that other idiocy that you folks seem to think is perfectly normal.  I have news for you. It's not normal at all. In fact, it's decidedly abnormal.

[Emn1ty]

1 minute ago, FloatingFatMan said:

It's not a contradiction, and it's not solution because, as I already quite clearly stated already, it merely perpetuates the current state of affairs.  Having armed guards might save a few lives (assuming the armed guard doesn't run away with the rest), but it's just putting a bandage over a gaping wound without first using stitches.  The only real solution is to actually fix the problems turning your society into a survivalists worst nightmare.

 

No other school in the western world has to have armed guards in its schools, or even on-site police stations, metal detectors, drug searches and all that other idiocy that you folks seem to think is perfectly normal.  I have news for you. It's not normal at all. In fact, it's decidedly abnormal.

You wrote a lot of words without actually answering my question.

[FloatingFatMan]

3 minutes ago, Emn1ty said:

You wrote a lot of words without actually answering my question.

Then I suggest returning to school and taking a few English refresher classes, because I did.

[Emn1ty]

Just now, FloatingFatMan said:

Then I suggest returning to school and taking a few English refresher classes, because I did.

You responded to my question of why something wasn't a solution by talking about how the US is different than other western nations. That's not why it's not a solution. And implying that we should simply be "other western nations" is also not a solution, because the US is decidedly not other western nations. To be frank I don't think you actually have a good solution beyond effectively bragging about how other nations aren't the US. It's a lot of hot air and doesn't provide anything constructive to the conversation. Words without any real intention of understanding the issue.

[FloatingFatMan]

You asked why it's not a solution. I answered, Your failure to understand my answer is your problem, not mine.

 

It's not my job to find a solution to fix your problems, it's yours.  I'm merely pointing out why armed guards are not the answer.

[Emn1ty]

2 minutes ago, FloatingFatMan said:

You asked why it's not a solution. I answered, Your failure to understand my answer is your problem, not mine.

 

It's not my job to find a solution to fix your problems, it's yours.  I'm merely pointing out why armed guards are not the answer.

So you're just here to be a naysayer.

[kcbworth]

Can I just say @DocM that your coldness in these matters really upsets me. It seems really illogical as well.

 

Personally I have no idea why anyone would even dream about talking about their "rights" when we have more dead kids every week. I understand if you (for some reason) genuinely believe that arming more people will make the country safer (I don't really know how you came to that conclusion, but it's clear you have), however, it really feels like you are happy to dismiss the kids dying provided you get to keep your assault weapons.

 

Why?

[DocM]

1 hour ago, kcbworth said:

Can I just say @DocM that your coldness in these matters really upsets me. It seems really illogical as well.

 

Personally I have no idea why anyone would even dream about talking about their "rights" when we have more dead kids every week.

>

Why?

 

1) don't like the message, so attack or try to demean the messenger. Typical.

 

2) because rights are important. You start chipping away at one part of the Bill of Rights and the rest become a target for the next group of incrementalists. Rinse, wash, repeat and what do you have left? China?

 

3) personal experience x3. 

 

4) you propose banning a rifle because of the way it looks; light weight (black composites), functionality (handle, spartan structure) and ability to work in inclement conditions, not its function or power while firing.

 

Fact is, there are many hunting rifles and shotguns which make the AR-15 look weak by comparison, especially at close range.

 

Powerful becartridge? No. The military chose .223/5.56mm because it provided more cartridges per hauled kilogram of weight by each soldier while maintaining middling effectiveness. In fact, rural people use that cartridge to hunt vermin and small game. 

 

5) because of the obsession on the rifle type, a weapon which is rarely used in homicides, more effective solutions are being ignored and/or ridiculed proving how little the proponents of said actions know about the sublect.

[kcbworth]

17 minutes ago, DocM said:

so attack or try to demean the messenger.

What?

[Emn1ty]

7 hours ago, kcbworth said:

it really feels like you are happy to dismiss the kids dying.

Because "the kids" is a logical fallacy, an appeal to emotion that because children are dying it is somehow more of a problem. This ignores the fact that children are probably the smallest group of gun deaths. School shootings aren't always children. They range from child to adult (depending on if the campus is K-8, K-12, Highschool or College).

Here's a good description.

Quote

In their 2002 book, Art, Argument, and Advocacy: Mastering Parliamentary Debate, John Meany and Kate Shuster called the use of the phrase "Think of the children" in debate a type of logical fallacy and an appeal to emotion.[1] According to the authors, a debater may use the phrase to emotionally sway members of the audience and avoid logical discussion.[1] They provide an example: "I know this national missile defense plan has its detractors, but won't someone please think of the children?"[1] Their assessment was echoed by Margie Borschke in an article for the journal Media International Australia incorporating Culture and Policy, with Borschke calling its use a rhetorical tactic.[3]

In this case, people are attempting to distract from the issue of guns by instead focusing on the children involved. It is being used as a shield to prevent the advance of logical discourse. It's why the focus is always there, why people will just accuse others of not thinking of the children when they don't agree with their view.

 

[DocM]

6 hours ago, kcbworth said:

What?

 

By calling be me cold. I'm not cold, far from it. I simply believe in enforcing existing laws first (we aren't for several reasons and at several levels), addressing the proven mental health issues, changing things which truly matter (not banning guns which aren't functionally unique) etc. 

 

I also chafe at talk which push the narrative that school shootings are increasing when the opposite is true. They've been in decline since the early 1990s.

 

The rest is mental masturbation.

[FloatingFatMan]

8 hours ago, DocM said:

because rights are important. You start chipping away at one part of the Bill of Rights and the rest become a target for the next group of incrementalists. Rinse, wash, repeat and what do you have left? China?

Every single time someone tries to enforce existing laws, someone from the pro-gun side starts screaming "Mah rights!! Mah rights!!!".

 

Every single time someone tries to bring in NEW laws, someone from the pro-gun side starts screaming  "Mah rights!! Mah rights!!!".

 

You folks don't want to fix the problem, you're happy with mass shootings just as long as you get "your rights", and to hell with the dead.

 

1 hour ago, DocM said:

The rest is mental masturbation.

And this is you demeaning the anti-gun side.

 

[FloatingFatMan]

11 hours ago, Emn1ty said:

So you're just here to be a naysayer.

The only thing I'm a naysayer of is needless and preventable death.

[Emn1ty]

16 minutes ago, FloatingFatMan said:

The only thing I'm a naysayer of is needless and preventable death.

Unless it's done the way you want it done, then for whatever reason you think those needless and preventable deaths are fine.

Let me pose the question to you in a different way. Do you think posting at least one armed responder on school campuses is worth it even if it prevents the death of one child? Or is it more important that the second amendment be revisited and national legislation be passed that no other solution can be considered? Until national legislation and/or overhaul occurs the deaths are worth it?

[FloatingFatMan]

7 minutes ago, Emn1ty said:

Unless it's done the way you want it done, then for whatever reason you think those needless and preventable deaths are fine.

Let me pose the question to you in a different way. Do you think posting at least one armed responder on school campuses is worth it even if it prevents the death of one child? Or is it more important that the second amendment be revisited and national legislation be passed that no other solution can be considered? Until national legislation and/or overhaul occurs the deaths are worth it?

I've already answered this often enough, but I'll do so again one last time.

 

Mounting armed guards might save a few lives, but it's nothing more than a band aid over an open wound; a temporary solution that doesn't go anywhere near where you need to be for an actual fix.

[PGHammer]

On 3/25/2018 at 1:05 PM, FloatingFatMan said:

No, I don't think you should. Broken promises are even worse, especially when those making the promises do it knowing full well that they WILL be broken.

 

As I've said before. Nothing is going to change until America as a whole undergoes a societal shift away from guns.

Floating - I get that much - that is, in fact, why I am daring to ask the question.

 

Floating - do you even realize what you are asking?  I even pointed out where the "gun culture" came from - it is actually part of the formation of the country itself.  Yet you are asking us to basically throw it away.  It would be like asking the United Kingdom to throw away the monarchy.  (Two different times some of your own countrymen (Oliver Cromwell and the Rump Parliament) tried that - didn't go over at all, did it?)  You are asking something THAT illogical - and you either don't realize it, or don't care.  Which is it?

 

It's also why I asked about the premise OF the promise that was originally made TO the kids - was it even keepable on its face? (Notice that I am not blaming the kids.  The kids are saying "keep the promise regardless" - that IS something that kids will, in fact, do.  They don't care about what it will do to the rest of the country - all they care about is keeping that promise that was made to them.  That is not on them - nor should it be.  It is on those that MADE the promise - and it wasn't the NRA.

 

 

[FloatingFatMan]

Of course I realise how difficult giving up guns is.  But until you do, things will not change.

[PGHammer]

9 minutes ago, FloatingFatMan said:

Of course I realise how difficult giving up guns is.  But until you do, things will not change.

When guns are a part of the formation of the nation itself, it may well be impossible.  (I am actually willing to ADMIT that.)  As I also pointed out, that sort of thinking is not unique - has the UK given up the monarchy?  (Remember, that imposition was actually tried by force in the UK - at least twice - and it went over by a lead balloon - and I did NOT count the "Gunpowder Plot".)

 

That has been a point of friction between the United States and other Western nations for as long as the United States has existed - the uniqueness of our creation and the uniqueness of our culture as a result of it - it flies in the face of what other Western nations know by experience.  (We aren't tribal, we aren't really ethnic, yet we are one of the most-admired nations on the planet DESPITE both.)  Look what it took for SPAIN to give up the monarchy.  (It is at least as old as that of the UK - with a Franco Interruption.)  Look at the bushido culture in Japan - it is, in fact, even older than our culture.  Even more telling, look at the effects on modern Japan - it is FAR from all "cherry blossoms and ramen" in Japan.  While gun violence is but a fraction of that of the United States, what is the suicide rate in Japan compared to other Western nations - including that of the United States?  Workplace violence?  Sexual harrassment?  Harrassment of gays and lesbians outside the workplace?  Yes - it's getting into "culture warfare" territory - which maybe SHOULD be where this thread needs to go.

Edited March 27, 2018 by PGHammer

[FloatingFatMan]

I have no desire to get into any kind of cultural warfare to be honest.  I actually really like the USA and have much admiration for all that such a young country has managed to achieve.  Yes you have problems, so do we; so do all nations.  Where the US differs though is the sheer reticence on the part of its people to actually address the problems hurting your society.

 

Do I think you need strict gun control?  Not really, to be honest.  You already have plenty of laws to control guns. Where you're failing is in the enforcement of the laws you DO have, and this is the fault of your failed politicians and their lobbying masters with their deep pockets.

 

You were given your rights to own guns by your founders for the express purpose of making sure your government doesn't turn into something from the "old country".  Sadly, in the midst of all your whining about your rights, that actually happened right under your noses and you now have about as much freedom as the rest of us.

 

[PGHammer]

5 minutes ago, FloatingFatMan said:

I have no desire to get into any kind of cultural warfare to be honest.  I actually really like the USA and have much admiration for all that such a young country has managed to achieve.  Yes you have problems, so do we; so do all nations.  Where the US differs though is the sheer reticence on the part of its people to actually address the problems hurting your society.

 

Do I think you need strict gun control?  Not really, to be honest.  You already have plenty of laws to control guns. Where you're failing is in the enforcement of the laws you DO have, and this is the fault of your failed politicians and their lobbying masters with their deep pockets.

 

You were given your rights to own guns by your founders for the express purpose of making sure your government doesn't turn into something from the "old country".  Sadly, in the midst of all your whining about your rights, that actually happened right under your noses and you now have about as much freedom as the rest of us.

 

Floating - who is taking the politicians off the hook?  Certainly not me!  There were failures on ALL sides with Parkland - that has been documented; what is, in fact, being done to address THOSE?  (Everywhere from SRO cowardice - which certainly looks like a failure to me - to mental-health issues that were not discovered with the shooter, etc.) What scares me is that "March For Our Lives" WILL, in fact, take the focus AWAY from fixing the immediately fixable that require little or NO new legislation - that merely require better enforcement of existing law and legislation.  That is what I am asking - fix the little things first!

[DocM]

1 hour ago, FloatingFatMan said:

Of course I realise how difficult giving up guns is.  But until you do, things will not change.

They already are; there's been a steep decline in both gun homicides and school shootings over the last 25 years.  This in spite of the number of firearms almost doubling, and the 24/7 news cycle making it seem otherwise via increased noise and punditry.

[Emn1ty]

3 hours ago, FloatingFatMan said:

I've already answered this often enough, but I'll do so again one last time.

 

Mounting armed guards might save a few lives, but it's nothing more than a band aid over an open wound; a temporary solution that doesn't go anywhere near where you need to be for an actual fix.

So, just to be clear, you're accepting of posting armed guards as you would applying a bandage to an open wound to prevent things from getting worse before it can be treated properly. Am I correct?