So, the notion that armed guards will prevent shootings.

[Sean]

Not so much.

[Colonel Hogan]

Yeah, I'm sure a prominently posted notice prohibiting guns inside of the courthouse would have done the trick. That and a metal scanner should be more than sufficient.

Oh,.....wait.

http://courts.delaware.gov/Superior/security.stm

[Sean]

Originally Posted by Colonel Hogan

Yeah, I'm sure a prominently posted notice prohibiting guns inside of the courthouse would have done the trick. That and a metal scanner should be more than sufficient.

Oh,.....wait.

http://courts.delaware.gov/Superior/security.stm

I never said it would do the trick. It appears armed security guards don't either, contrary to the much stated view of the floppy penis brigade.

[SgtSpiderMan]

Originally Posted by Colonel Hogan

Yeah, I'm sure a prominently posted notice prohibiting guns inside of the courthouse would have done the trick. That and a metal scanner should be more than sufficient.

Oh,.....wait.

http://courts.delaware.gov/Superior/security.stm

Courts have more armed guards than a school does.

[CHNOPS]

Difficult to imagine a "guard" more armed than the sniper who was killed at a SHOOTING RANGE.

It seems ___ with guns stop ___ with guns is handier as a slogan than a full-scale societal experiment. As long as it's only people getting killed in the mean time, and not membership rates of a for-profit gun lobby, I guess there's really no downside.

[sufisaint]

He did not get passed the guards but I am sure the courthouse steps and entrance is a "safe" no-gun zone......and those guards are there to protect the Judges and civil servants not the public so they did their job.

[Sean]

Originally Posted by sufisaint

He did not get passed the guards but I am sure the courthouse steps and entrance is a "safe" no-gun zone......and those guards are there to protect the Judges and civil servants not the public so they did their job.

Tell that to the two dead women.

[bronzeage]

Originally Posted by sufisaint

He did not get passed the guards but I am sure the courthouse steps and entrance is a "safe" no-gun zone......and those guards are there to protect the Judges and civil servants not the public so they did their job.

Translation: This is a case where armed guards were too little, too late.

[sufisaint]

Originally Posted by SeanH

Tell that to the two dead women.

When I I used to get protection orders for women from the clinic I volunteered at it was not a rare occurrence for them to be attacked in courthouse parking lot. I usually walked them to their cars or waited at the bus stop.

[Colonel Hogan]

Originally Posted by SgtSpiderMan

Courts have more armed guards than a school does.

Perhaps that's why courts seem to have fewer violent shootings than schools do. That's an anecdotal impression on my part and may not be true, but what if it is? It would seem to suggest that a potentially dangerous environment jammed packed with legal adversaries including violent criminals could be reasonably secured and safely mitigated for the most part through a number of security procedures including armed guards in sufficient numbers.

But if we can agree that even those efforts (and any others you could think of) would not provide a 100% guarantee against gun violence, the question remains, what would?

Within the Constitutional guarantee of an individual right to "keep and bear arms," what is the most effective legal way to prevent the criminal use of firearms?

[Sean]

Originally Posted by Colonel Hogan

Perhaps that's why courts seem to have fewer violent shootings than schools do. That's an anecdotal impression on my part and may not be true, but what if it is? It would seem to suggest that a potentially dangerous environment jammed packed with legal adversaries including violent criminals could be reasonably secured and safely mitigated for the most part through a number of security procedures including armed guards in sufficient numbers.

But if we can agree that even those efforts (and any others you could think of) would not provide a 100% guarantee against gun violence, the question remains, what would?

Within the Constitutional guarantee of an individual right to "keep and bear arms," what is the most effective legal way to prevent the criminal use of firearms?

Limit the arms being held to smooth bore flintlocks.

[CHNOPS]

Originally Posted by Colonel Hogan

Perhaps that's why courts seem to have fewer violent shootings than schools do. That's an anecdotal impression on my part and may not be true, but what if it is? It would seem to suggest that a potentially dangerous environment jammed packed with legal adversaries including violent criminals could be reasonably secured and safely mitigated for the most part through a number of security procedures including armed guards in sufficient numbers.

But if we can agree that even those efforts (and any others you could think of) would not provide a 100% guarantee against gun violence, the question remains, what would?

Within the Constitutional guarantee of an individual right to "keep and bear arms," what is the most effective legal way to prevent the criminal use of firearms?

My answer/gambit: to acknowledge that we already drastically subvert that guarantee by regulating almost all other tools of war to the point of non-accessibility, and to therefore also limit this particular tool of war to (and only to) the point where it cannot reasonably by defined as a weapon of mass destruction.

If anyone wonders if this is really possible after the "horse has left the barn," they only need to look at the so-called Bonnie and Clyde tax, and what it did for machine-gun availability in the middle part of the last century. It was a weapon of mass-destruction, we taxed-and-traced it almost completely out of circulation, even--especially/exclusively--bad guys' hands.

Downside?

[Colonel Hogan]

Originally Posted by CHNOPS

My answer/gambit: to acknowledge that we already drastically subvert that guarantee by regulating almost all other tools of war to the point of non-accessibility, and to therefore also limit this particular tool of war to (and only to) the point where it cannot reasonably by defined as a weapon of mass destruction.

If anyone wonders if this is really possible after the "horse has left the barn," they only need to look at the so-called Bonnie and Clyde tax, and what it did for machine-gun availability in the middle part of the last century. It was a weapon of mass-destruction, we taxed-and-traced it almost completely out of circulation, even--especially/exclusively--bad guys' hands.

Downside?

I don't know if it is a "downside," but it would seem to me that the logic gate with the rusty hinge is the "reasonable" definition of a weapon of mass destruction. IMHO, I am not certain that a machine gun, obviously designed for war and to kill scores of enemy with quick dispatch is nonetheless properly categorized with chemical, biological and nuclear weapons of mass destruction designed to decimate entire populations.

A revolver can kill six people with fairly quick dispatch as well. If WMDs are defined by the size of the magazine and/or the rapidity in which a full load can be fired, how do we parse the number of potential victims before reloading as being within the Constitutionally implied mandate of risk?

[1sickbastard]

Originally Posted by Colonel Hogan

I don't know if it is a "downside," but it would seem to me that the logic gate with the rusty hinge is the "reasonable" definition of a weapon of mass destruction. IMHO, I am not certain that a machine gun, obviously designed for war and to kill scores of enemy with quick dispatch is nonetheless properly categorized with chemical, biological and nuclear weapons of mass destruction designed to decimate entire populations.

A revolver can kill six people with fairly quick dispatch as well. If WMDs are defined by the size of the magazine and/or the rapidity in which a full load can be fired, how do we parse the number of potential victims before reloading as being within the Constitutionally implied mandate of risk?

Just a side note;
Decimate is to reduce by one tenth. The origin is Roman, who would use the process of decimation to discipline a legion, with one in ten soldiers being selected by lot to be clubbed to death by their comrades.
WMD's are intended to devastate an enemy population/armed force.

I know the two terms are commonly used interchangeably, but they do not mean the same thing.

Sorry for the interruption.
Now back to the regularly scheduled thread.

[vetteman]

IT’S BEEN A BAD WEEK FOR ROBBERS IN DETROIT: CONCEALED CARRY HOLDERS FIGHT BACK AND OPEN FIRE

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013...and-open-fire/

[bronzeage]

Let's be fair.

An armed guard cannot prevent shootings, but they can reduce the number of people shot. In this case, we should be grateful only 2 women were killed.

We also have to assume the were shot by the original shooter. It's entirely possible the gunman never fired a shot.

[vetteman]

Yawn:

WND EXCLUSIVE
ARMED CHURCHGOER PREVENTS SLAUGHTER
'History and common sense prove that gun-free zones are dangerous'
Published: 2 days ago

Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2013/02/church-me...RjY1F2Fx853.99

[shoulderblade]

Originally Posted by 1sickbastard

Just a side note;
Decimate is to reduce by one tenth. The origin is Roman, who would use the process of decimation to discipline a legion, with one in ten soldiers being selected by lot to be clubbed to death by their comrades.
WMD's are intended to devastate an enemy population/armed force.

Quite odd really as a case of "meaning drift" in a word especially when it contains "deci" a clear indicator of ten/tenth. Perhaps we underestimate the human enthusiasim for destruction.

Sorry for the interruption.
Now back to the regularly scheduled thread.

[CHNOPS]

Originally Posted by Colonel Hogan

I don't know if it is a "downside," but it would seem to me that the logic gate with the rusty hinge is the "reasonable" definition of a weapon of mass destruction. IMHO, I am not certain that a machine gun, obviously designed for war and to kill scores of enemy with quick dispatch is nonetheless properly categorized with chemical, biological and nuclear weapons of mass destruction designed to decimate entire populations.

A revolver can kill six people with fairly quick dispatch as well. If WMDs are defined by the size of the magazine and/or the rapidity in which a full load can be fired, how do we parse the number of potential victims before reloading as being within the Constitutionally implied mandate of risk?

I chose/applied the "WMD" label in this case, so rather than get caught up in the definition of it, I'd rather focus on the larger point: That Constitutional provision makes no special distinction for sidearms over any other tool of warfare (the contemporaneous definition of "arms"). Yet, we seem able to agree that, could you acquire and store a nuclear warhead, your having one would be a very bad/dangerous idea.

We routinely (if subtextually) apply a proportional algorithm to our weapons restrictions--the more damage a single person could do with a single weapon, the more likely we are to restrict it. So why shouldn't we apply that algorithm in a consistent manner across all "arms," side- or otherwise? Would doing so result in a different selection of available firearms? If so, what is the compelling argument for ignoring that fact--even celebrating the subversion of it?

[koalabear]

Originally Posted by vetteman

IT’S BEEN A BAD WEEK FOR ROBBERS IN DETROIT: CONCEALED CARRY HOLDERS FIGHT BACK AND OPEN FIRE

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013...and-open-fire/

Originally Posted by vetteman

Yawn:

WND EXCLUSIVE
ARMED CHURCHGOER PREVENTS SLAUGHTER
'History and common sense prove that gun-free zones are dangerous'
Published: 2 days ago

Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2013/02/church-me...RjY1F2Fx853.99

[Sean]

Originally Posted by koalabear

I see Vette and his bottom don't get it. OK, here's how it works. The right has been propounding a theory that more guns will prevent nutjobs shooters. It only takes ONE example of that not being the case to falsify the theory. Just one. Which I did in the OP.

[vetteman]

Originally Posted by SeanH

I see Vette and his bottom don't get it. OK, here's how it works. The right has been propounding a theory that more guns will prevent nutjobs shooters. It only takes ONE example of that not being the case to falsify the theory. Just one. Which I did in the OP.

Yes butt fuck we understand your stupid strategy.

[Sean]

Originally Posted by vetteman

Yes butt fuck we understand your stupid strategy.

You obviously have no understanding of logic.

[vetteman]

Originally Posted by SeanH

You obviously have no understanding of logic.

I understand your demented logic just fine.

[BotanyBoy]

Originally Posted by SeanH

Limit the arms being held to smooth bore flintlocks.

LOL and what the fuck do you expect that to do with a few hundred million modern guns circulating the population, stashed all over the fucking place like little pots of gold or something??

Cat is out of the bag you fucking retard...lol