If you love the kids, you’ll arm the teachers!

[Sean]

As if the words from the CDC scientists that they are the ones doing it have no meaning...

Christ on a cracker.

Tim, your demonstrable lack of knowledge of, well anything, really, is self evident, even someone as dumb as you has to admit that the CDC being banned from studying gun violence was political.

 

[Sean]

AGAIN, it's a false flag narrative. GUN violence is VIOLENCE done with a gun. Take out the GUN part and you STILL HAVE violence. And guess what - the category you now classify it in isn't GUN VIOLENCE anymore but some other category like "violent crime". So the result is that you have FALSE DATA showing a reduction in GUN crimes while the data for OTHER crimes rises.

I already said this. And you missed it.

Ah, right. We can't discuss gun violence because some people get cancer.

 

[cherries_on_snow]

Are you trying to tell us that a poor 14-year-old kid from the inner city didn't smuggle the gun into this country all by himself?!

A 14- year old kid in America is far more likely to have gotten a gun from his parents or from a gun nut's glovebox than foreign gunrunners and their Texan enablers. Well. Except in Texas.

 

[cherries_on_snow]

Tim, your demonstrable lack of knowledge of, well anything, really, is self evident, even someone as dumb as you has to admit that the CDC being banned from studying gun violence was political.

Recipe for fascism: control intellectuals, control information, stoke nationalistic discontent.

 

[jomar]

Cite? Because the ONLY studies I know of are those that are either commissioned by political parties, the anti-gun groups, or the pro-gun groups. Even the CDC had it's funding removed because it was compiling data to fit the anti-gun narrative rather than doing the research from a neutral point of view.

There are NO "unbiased" gun studies out there. None. If you know of one, I'd like to read it. Mostly because in the nearly 3 decades I've been keeping up on this, I have yet to see one. Ever. From any source.

I understand bias, but lumping all research as left vs right does a disservice to those trying to sort this out. Not all research works backward from a conclusion.

For decades the NRA has pushed for legislation stifling gun violence research.

No. Without guns, there is no GUN violence. This is the mantra the anti-gun crowd chant all day long. Except it's a false flag that focuses on GUN instead of VIOLENCE.

Is domestic violence less severe if the victim is beaten to death rather than killed with a gun?

Are bank robberies less a crime if the robber uses a note saying he has a bomb instead of pointing a gun at the cashier?

Is rape less damaging if done at the point of a knife?

Violence happens. That it sometimes happens with a gun doesn't alter the fact that violence happens. Saying that THE GUN is what causes it is stupid. If you want to stop VIOLENCE then look at the source... the person who commits it. Not the tool he uses.

What we are talking about here is mass shootings. It’s been clearly demonstrated that less guns and stricter acces to gun leads to less gun violence...just look to Australia for that evidence.

Violence is something we should address, sure, but addressing gun violence itself is not a false flag, but needs to be a component of an overall solution.

 

[HisArpy]

Tim, your demonstrable lack of knowledge of, well anything, really, is self evident, even someone as dumb as you has to admit that the CDC being banned from studying gun violence was political.

What a dumbfuck you are. Really, you are.

The CDC wasn't banned it had it's funding cut and re-allocated. Congress (rightfully) determined that Federal taxpayer money shouldn't be used to finance research into restrictions on Constitutional Rights. Which is what the CDC ADMITTED they were doing.

If you actually knew something of substance about the debate, you'd know this. But you don't. Instead you think it's clever to say fake shit about stuff you know nothing about.

What a dumbfuck you are.

 

[Sean]

What a dumbfuck you are. Really, you are.

The CDC wasn't banned it had it's funding cut and re-allocated. Congress (rightfully) determined that Federal taxpayer money shouldn't be used to finance research into restrictions on Constitutional Rights. Which is what the CDC ADMITTED they were doing.

If you actually knew something of substance about the debate, you'd know this. But you don't. Instead you think it's clever to say fake shit about stuff you know nothing about.

What a dumbfuck you are.

How is research an infringement of the second amendment, Tim?

 

[IG_88]

I know you don't have to be smart to be a lawyer but you'd think there'd be some glimmer of intelligence. A spark. Something.
Incredible. Simply incredible.

 

[jomar]

I’m willing to hear how this study was biased, though I think I can predict...

Article on the study
https://www.vox.com/2016/2/29/11120184/gun-control-study-international-evidence

Paper
https://watermark.silverchair.com/m...SbzRAeg00RsR1TM8_5im-7asNOJPGAhGggqv4qRB9-57y

 

[HisArpy]

I understand bias, but lumping all research as left vs right does a disservice to those trying to sort this out. Not all research works backward from a conclusion.

For decades the NRA has pushed for legislation stifling gun violence research.



What we are talking about here is mass shootings. It’s been clearly demonstrated that less guns and stricter acces to gun leads to less gun violence...just look to Australia for that evidence.

Violence is something we should address, sure, but addressing gun violence itself is not a false flag, but needs to be a component of an overall solution.

The NRA is not against gun violence research.

The NRA’s position at the time, which has not changed, is that tax dollars should not be used to take sides in a policy debate. This violates the most basic principle of science, in which objective research should be the goal, rather than a biased policy position against individual firearm ownership.
USA Today article

Mass shootings. It's been a clear demonstration that gun control prevents mass shootings? Where? Oh, Australia.

One problem. This ain't Australia. This is the USA where we have a Constitutional RIGHT to own firearms. In the words of the late Justice Antonin Scalia "that takes certain policy decisions off the table."

Furthermore, as I've said, taking away GUNS doesn't stop violence. All it does is shift the violent acts into other categories where the bad guys use other methods/means.

 

[Sean]

The NRA is not against gun violence research.




Mass shootings. It's been a clear demonstration that gun control prevents mass shootings? Where? Oh, Australia.

One problem. This ain't Australia. This is the USA where we have a Constitutional RIGHT to own firearms. In the words of the late Justice Antonin Scalia "that takes certain policy decisions off the table."

Furthermore, as I've said, taking away GUNS doesn't stop violence. All it does is shift the violent acts into other categories where the bad guys use other methods/means.

The UK murder rate is about a quarter of the US, Tim.

 

[jomar]

The NRA is not against gun violence research.

So they say. Meanwhile Congress slashed funding to the CDC that was going to be used on gun injury research.

Mass shootings. It's been a clear demonstration that gun control prevents mass shootings? Where? Oh, Australia.

One problem. This ain't Australia. This is the USA where we have a Constitutional RIGHT to own firearms. In the words of the late Justice Antonin Scalia "that takes certain policy decisions off the table."

Furthermore, as I've said, taking away GUNS doesn't stop violence. All it does is shift the violent acts into other categories where the bad guys use other methods/means.

Yes, Australia is a unique example, but the results can’t be denied.

And yes, guns aren’t going away in America. As a society we need to do a better job raising kids and providing help to those in mental health need and all that stuff we’ve given lip service to. But to ignore guns as a factor in what we need to do to address violence overall is ludicrous.

As to your contention that all gun control does is to shift violence to other categories, well fine, a number of those categories are less lethal and less lehtal for many people at one time.

 

[psiberzerker]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_Switzerland

Here's a statistic for you:

In 2016, there were 16 gun homicides in Switzerlund, and 16 mass shootings in America.

Must be doing something right.

 

[nowisthetime]

OP is obviously an entitled, old white retard.

I have come to expect ignorance from these 'murica types.

So you want to arm a stressed out teacher who could shoot a kid and claim self defense?


That's what is wrong with you American trash. So fucking stupid.

 

[psiberzerker]

OP is obviously an entitled, old white retard. I have come to expect ignorance from these 'murica types.

ad hominem.

So you want to arm a stressed out teacher who could shoot a kid and claim self defense?

I'm more concerned about training, and retention. Where's the guns? Is there something to keep the kids from taking the gun away, and shooting it? Okay, let's say it's locked in a desk. When there is a shooting, how long does it take (Let's say) him to get it out of the locked desk, and bring it to battery?

These are issues the "Self Defense" advocates gloss over, even though they at least claim to train for just such a scenario. Every measure you put into Retention (Keeping control over your gun) slows your reaction time.

So, the fantasy is the psycho bursts through the door, and the GGWAG clears their concealment, and everything they do to ensure that gun stays in the "Right hands" AT ALL TIMES.

One person came to school knowing there was going to be a shooting. They already have the gun out, the safety off, and their finger on the trigger. The fantasy is you're going to bring your gun to battery, and shoot (For the sake of argument) him, DEAD, before he can aim, and fire.

Anyone in the situation is going to shoot the guy with the gun first. The badguy with the gun is ready to shoot first. They win.

That's what is wrong with you American trash. So fucking stupid.

Ad-hominem again.

 

[phrodeau]

(edited)

One person came to school knowing there was going to be a shooting. They already have the gun out, the safety off, and their finger on the trigger. The fantasy is you're going to bring your gun to battery, and shoot (For the sake of argument) him, DEAD, before he can aim, and fire.

And before the LEO's show up and shoot everyone holding anything larger than a pencil.

 

[psiberzerker]

And before the LEO's show up and shoot everyone holding anything larger than a pencil.

Then what? Haul off the body, or surround the school with SWAT, and hope he doesn't kill any more?

The teachers can't even afford Pencils. Are you going to pay to arm, train, and supply them as effective shooters with Retention, so the guns stay in their control throughout the school year, in every school?

It would be cheaper to hire enough teachers to deal with the students before they show up with firearms for attention.

 

[Rightguide]

Tim, your demonstrable lack of knowledge of, well anything, really, is self evident, even someone as dumb as you has to admit that the CDC being banned from studying gun violence was political.

First off Guns don't have a fucking thing to do with disease. Democrat Party affiliation is a social disease more fitting of their mission statement and offering a much more dangerous threat to the American body politic.

 

[bestone4ever]

First off Guns don't have a fucking thing to do with disease.

Thank you! It's about time someone like yourself admitted that gun violence has nothing to do with mental illness.

 

[psiberzerker]

gun violence has nothing to do with mental illness.

Neither does the CDC.

 

[Colonel Hogan]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_Switzerland

Here's a statistic for you:

In 2016, there were 16 gun homicides in Switzerlund, and 16 mass shootings in America.

Must be doing something right.

And here are a few statistics for you. Switzerland has a population of 8.3 million people -- 1/40th of the United States. It has a poverty rate of one half that of the United States. It has a per capita gun ownership rate of 24.45 per 100 residents compared to the U. S. figure of 101 per 100 -- a somewhat misleading statistic since 50% of all American guns are owned by only 3% of the population.

Also, the Swiss gun laws are not so restrictive that they effectively deprive very many people of gun ownership. Compared to its total population, private gun ownership in Switzerland is quite high.

But, yeah, they are obviously doing something right. But it would be speculative at best to point to any one thing -- especially their gun laws -- as a definitive cause.

 

[KimGordon67]

I haven't read the whole thread, so possibly someone's made this point already ... but basically Coach seems to be saying that we should arm an extremely large group of people who are paid shittily, over-worked, and poorly treated by their employers (the state) ... no chance that could potentially create the proletariat revolution at all.

 

[KimGordon67]

I typically work 55 hours per week. I spend half of my off time researching and doing required professional development coursework.

As usual, Coach Binky has no idea what he's talking about. The numbers of people who think teachers only work while standing in front of kids is alarming ... and honestly, I watched teachers do the teaching of five year olds. Even if that WAS the only time they worked, I'd be OK with it, because they're doing the work of three of people then anyway. (But of course, I'm guessing Coach would basically conceptualise that as 'baby sitting' because they're only 5.)

 

[Bray123]

The total number of guns is likely not too relevant; if a household has 100 guns or 500 guns it makes no difference unless the shooter has 500 hands to use them.

On the other hand, the proportion of US households that have at least one gun has remained fairly static over recent years (43% in 1972, 42% in 2017)
https://www.statista.com/statistics...eholds-in-the-united-states-owning-a-firearm/

There are two distinct features that I see.
1. Easy access to guns. Nearly half of households in the US have guns, so if anyone decides to commit murder the ideal weapon is easily obtainable. Some may be illegal, but every gun was once legal. The more there are around, the more likely it is that some will be stolen and traded.

2. Glorification of guns. I don't know of any other country where ownership is written into the constitution, where people go out and buy hundreds of guns for no reason beyond 'Come and take them from me'. Where people walk into shops and schools carrying guns just to announce that they can and will do it. Some seem to think that they live in Dodge City where there are no supermarkets and where the President will turn up tomorrow to inspect their trailer.

Until people realise that they are part of the problem, they will never be part of the solution.

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

I haven't read the whole thread, so possibly someone's made this point already ... but basically Coach seems to be saying that we should arm an extremely large group of people who are paid shittily, over-worked, and poorly treated by their employers (the state) ... no chance that could potentially create the proletariat revolution at all.

And don't forget are in no way trained to do the job (or may even want that as their job). Law enforcement gets training, not just how how to handle a gun, but how to assess a situation, identify threats, and when & how to eliminate those threats, and law enforcement still makes mistakes.