Mock Shooter as 'Anti-Immigration' Pro-Gun Student - Page 2
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 19 of 19
Like Tree5Likes

Mock Shooter as 'Anti-Immigration' Pro-Gun Student

This is a discussion on Mock Shooter as 'Anti-Immigration' Pro-Gun Student within the Politics forums, part of the Main Category category; "Doug Reed, the lead exercise planner for the county’s Emergency Management Agency, said the scenario was only constructed for the ...

  1. #11
    JSDinTexas Guest

    Default

    "Doug Reed, the lead exercise planner for the county’s Emergency Management Agency, said the scenario was only constructed for the purpose of securing Department of Homeland Security Grant funding, which requires the drill simulate a terrorism scenario."

    In that case, maybe Mr Reed should have simulated blowing up his underwear, I think that's where his brains probably are.

    Remember that Homeland Security is still waiting for the 3rd plane to show up at the twin towers in NY with Bin Ladin at the controls.

  2. #12
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    1,038

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by nogods View Post
    School shootings don't occur because they are gun free zones. They occur because that's where the student shooters have their focus or that's where the crazed other person is looking for intended targets.

    These mass killers don't calculate whether someone might have a firearm on the premises. Louchner proved that. In fact, in most cases they anticipate such, if not immediately than certainly when the police show up.

    We can't sway public opinion with specious arguments like the "gun free zone" myth. First because it doesn't hold water with past experience, and second because it is premised on "what if's" and the "what if's" outcomes can be equally disastrous as they can be beneficial.

    Casas Adobes, AZ is not a gun-free zone. There were armed citizens there, yet none of them used their arms to stop the slaughter.
    In many states "Political Rallies" ARE supposedly gun free zones! But I won't belabor the point.

    What ifs can be equally as disasterous? Interesting conjecture. Particularly since no one has "tested the theory". They just assume, as you did, that "it would be bad". Very scientific conclusion. (That's satirical!) Inadmissable.

    I contend that if there were armed persons in schools, it IS possible that, at the very least, SOME damage control might be managed. You wrote that off, too. (Apparently I'm not the only citizen that feels it might do some good, there is widespread support for concealed carry in colleges... particularly after the VT incident a couple of years ago.)

    Your "answer" to the problem, then, is the status quo, rather than trying something that might have some promise at helping resolve the damage. (For NOTHING is ever going to completely stop the occasional nutjob from trying to take out his frustrations on the nearest "soft target". INCLUDING Gun free zones!) It's just one of those little facts of life that continuously makes a lie of some people's version of a completely safe and sound life here in the US.

    I beg your pardon, no one ever promised ANY of us a rose garden!

    Incidently, the past experience on "gun free zones" is that it does nothing to prevent a nutjob or a bad guy from going armed in them. It only (really) affects decent law abiding citizens and the potential opportunity to defend themselves. Even at that there are no guarantees.... but a small chance of success is better than no chance at all, IMHO, of course.

    In fact, the "past experiences" that DO exist tend to demonstrate that there is no one present in gun free zones to immediately take action to prevent a high body count. That much is obvious. The alternative? Do away with the gun free zones. At least have the guts to experiment with the idea.

    Every time a topic that loosens gun control comes up, the immediate, knee jerk reaction is for the anti-gunners to proclaim "That would be BAD!" Generally without a lick of evidence to be able to show that a valid "excuse".

    Just like the "Castle Doctrine" adoption in the various States. Every State it is introduced in legislature, the immediate hue and cry is that "the streets will run red with blood" makes the headlines. EVERY TIME! (I guess it's because the gunaphobics can't think of anything original to claim.) Then the legislation passes.... and GUESS WHAT? The streets DON'T run red with blood. EVERY TIME! (You would think that at least one of the gunaphobes might take notice of that little "coincidence". But, no! It's same-o same-o and utterly, utterly predictable, their "fear factor" claims.)

    Thus, for your plea to "sway public opinion", I don't believe that is a very logical approach. Mainly because the gunaphobics are NOT logical, nor can they be "swayed" by simple rhetoric. About the best we can do with them is keep a close watch on them and keep them on a short leash. (Don't want them spreading their crap too far afield.)

    Fanatics: Cannot change their minds. Will not change the subject.

    GG
    Fanatics of any sort are dangerous! -GG-
    Which part of "... shall NOT be infringed..." confuses you?
    Well now, aren't WE a pair, Raggedy Man? (Thunderdome)

  3. #13
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    2,342

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Grognard Gunny View Post
    Your "answer" to the problem, then, is the status quo, rather than trying something that might have some promise at helping resolve the damage. (For NOTHING is ever going to completely stop the occasional nutjob from trying
    My answer to "the problem" is to address the factors that result in restrictions on places law abiding are allowed to carry, rather than to play out empty slogans.

    When someone says "I don't want legal guns on our school grounds" my response is to ask "why" and then explore the underlying reasons and ways of overcoming those reasons and concerns.

    If we don't engage in a probing rational discourse, then we just end up with two groups of people carrying signs with slogans of little or no meaning. That promotes the status quo.

  4. #14
    Peregrine Falcon's Avatar
    Peregrine Falcon is offline Peregrine Falcon
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Western Iowa
    Posts
    58

    Default

    Lots of good thoughts, I completely agree with GG that the backstory is flawed and not realistic at all. I don't see something like that ever happening, even if they wanted to include terrorism there are better ways they could have done that and still had a realistic backstory.

    I also agree that the kids that carry out these types of shootings aren't thinking about whether or not their school is a "gun free zone" even though they know it is. They are planning on being caught and facing the guns of police eventually which is why most kids that do this have taken their own life prior to authorities arriving.

    A further note on guns in schools; I found out recently (in my permit class) that Utah does allow teachers and administrators to carry guns on school property. They haven't had any issues with that at all from what I was told; zero school shootings. Maybe that could be used as a case study or to help boost stastics that might be favorable to carrying weapons.

  5. #15
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    1,038

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Peregrine Falcon View Post
    A further note on guns in schools; I found out recently (in my permit class) that Utah does allow teachers and administrators to carry guns on school property. They haven't had any issues with that at all from what I was told; zero school shootings. Maybe that could be used as a case study or to help boost stastics that might be favorable to carrying weapons.
    It probably COULD be, but since it is but a "small sample", a gunaphobe with even the slightest understanding of statistical analysis would proclaim it a statistical anomolie. (Which is precisely the exact same "excuse" they use to discount or dismiss EVERY attempt at actually providing proof of pro-gunners' claims. EVERY TIME!)

    Thus, my disdain for "nogods" approach to the matter. Nothing against "nogods", but the entire approach is futile and has been proven so, repeatedly, since forever.

    Your average gunaphobe is a closed minded, emotionally laden, fanatic! Incapable of reasonable discussion on the matter and absolutely determined to "get their way". (Sounds like your average, run of the mill Liberal, Progressive Democrat to me!)

    Like I suggested above, we need only to keep them on a tight leash, expose their lies vis-a-vis propaganda and rely on more considered thinkers to hold onto a majority in public opinion. As usual, the contest will be determined by "swing voters". The unfortunate part is that most "Media" outlets of mass usage, are generally part and parcel of the "Lib/Prog/Dem" propaganda machine.

    To me, they are not citizens merely expressing a difference of opinion. They are persons who wish to deprive me of my "rights", guaranteed under the Constitution, and have absolutely no guilt or consideration for that fact.

    Any person or entity that choses to pursue a course of action that deprives me of my rights as a citizen is, de facto, oppressive and my enemy.

    Whoa! You might say! Isn't THAT going a bit too far? No. I don't think so. After all, to hear THEM talk about us, we are nothing more than criminal wanna bees, dangerous gun nuts and a serious risk to society as a whole. THAT, I submit, is a little bit MORE than just a difference in opinion. To them, WE are the enemy. I don't believe treating someone with THAT level of hostile attitude as anything less than an enemy also.

    GG
    Fanatics of any sort are dangerous! -GG-
    Which part of "... shall NOT be infringed..." confuses you?
    Well now, aren't WE a pair, Raggedy Man? (Thunderdome)

  6. #16
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    2,342

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Grognard Gunny View Post
    Thus, my disdain for "nogods" approach to the matter. Nothing against "nogods", but the entire approach is futile and has been proven so, repeatedly, since forever.

    Your average gunaphobe is a closed minded, emotionally laden, fanatic! Incapable of reasonable discussion on the matter and absolutely determined to "get their way". (Sounds like your average, run of the mill Liberal, Progressive Democrat to me!)
    Unfortunately, there is an equal number of guniots on the right.

    But we don't need to deal with either group of extremists.

    The great majority of Americans are in the middle of the spectrum, whether they lean one way or the other. They can be persuaded with reason and logic. Driving away those we need to persuade will not serve the objective.

    We need to meet the opposition's BS with reasoning, not just our own BS. When an intelligent person hears two people arguing in slogans, they tune out both. They are not persuaded by either and will leave things as they are rather than get involved in what they perceive to be an inane argument.

  7. #17
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    1,038

    Default

    Point being that gun ownership is a guaranteed right. I shouldn't HAVE to convince ANYONE of that.

    I'm even so magnanimous as to let gunaphobes go about their business unarmed and just as gunaphobic as they like. There is nothing in the Bill of Rights that requires you to exercise your rights. You can take it or leave it. That's what liberty and freedom is all about. Freedom of choice.

    You don't want to be able to protect yourself from predators (uncivil souls OR elected souls), it is perfectly OK with me. You have that right, just as I have the right to protect myself, as necessary.

    What they do NOT have the right to do is to use the legislative process to force me to relenquish MY rights. Especially since those mentioned rights superceed and are supposed to be superior to the Constitution and the Government it creates. (That's the meaning of "inalienable" as in "inalienable rights".)

    I have a very strong "live and let live" attitude. I do not force you to live the way I like to (and have the guaranteed freedom to), I expect, at the very least, reciprocal treatment. Nothing less.

    GG
    Fanatics of any sort are dangerous! -GG-
    Which part of "... shall NOT be infringed..." confuses you?
    Well now, aren't WE a pair, Raggedy Man? (Thunderdome)

  8. #18
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    2,342

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Grognard Gunny View Post
    Point being that gun ownership is a guaranteed right. I shouldn't HAVE to convince ANYONE of that.

    I'm even so magnanimous as to let gunaphobes go about their business unarmed and just as gunaphobic as they like. There is nothing in the Bill of Rights that requires you to exercise your rights. You can take it or leave it. That's what liberty and freedom is all about. Freedom of choice.

    You don't want to be able to protect yourself from predators (uncivil souls OR elected souls), it is perfectly OK with me. You have that right, just as I have the right to protect myself, as necessary.

    What they do NOT have the right to do is to use the legislative process to force me to relenquish MY rights. Especially since those mentioned rights superceed and are supposed to be superior to the Constitution and the Government it creates. (That's the meaning of "inalienable" as in "inalienable rights".)

    I have a very strong "live and let live" attitude. I do not force you to live the way I like to (and have the guaranteed freedom to), I expect, at the very least, reciprocal treatment. Nothing less.

    GG
    Right here right now if you want to possess anything other than a firearm of common usage for self defense in your home, subject to a state or local licensing scheme design to determine eligibility to such a firearm, then you do have convince others.

    Everything beyond that right is currently a privilege subject to statutory restriction. Until the next favorable Supreme Court case or at least favorable Court of Appeals decisions, you can either work to expand that privilege or sit back and blow hot air about the "rights" you wished you had but presently don't.

    And if enough people get persuaded by the other side, we all stand to lose those statutory privileges we presently have.

  9. #19
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    1,038

    Default

    Well! In that case, convince away. Be my guest.

    All I can see is that the trend over the past twenty years has been toward the proponents of the 2nd Ammendment. Suits me.

    If, as you fear, the gunaphobes are turning the tide, I fully expect it to take that same number of years (barring any REAL BS from his majesty the Pres) to swing the other way. Well beyond my horizon of self interest.

    So, fight the good fight, young padawan learner. I will rest on my laurels and let you carry the load. (Heh! Heh! )

    GG
    Fanatics of any sort are dangerous! -GG-
    Which part of "... shall NOT be infringed..." confuses you?
    Well now, aren't WE a pair, Raggedy Man? (Thunderdome)

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •