Piers Morgan tweets about Fort Hood #2...

[TehJesus]

If you mind your own business in America, your chances of getting shot are pretty low.

You say that, but it still seems to happen with alarming regularity.

 

[Scrody]

You say that, but it still seems to happen with alarming regularity.

Well yeah, but its mostly confined to big cities and gang violence. Not your average joes.

 

[EGarrett]

Horrible situation, I try to look into these when they happen, and here I see something that's very common: The person in question had a history that would not pass a decent background check. In this case, according to wikipedia, the shooter had had two loved ones die in the last few months and was "undergoing psychiatric treatment for depression and anxiety."

It sounds like we need to actually enforce the policies we do have before we worry about trying to enact new ones.

 

[Madmick]

That's true, people are never perfect. I was just pointing out that cops typically aren't murderous psychos. But they never are until something crazy happens.

I agree. I was simply reminding you and the forum that most military personnel are not psychos, either.

 

[oldshadow]

I would have assumed the same of a soldier at his stationed military base, and I would have been wrong. It's a valid point.

I agree. I was simply reminding you and the forum that most military personnel are not psychos, either.

Fragging has been around for a while. Playing the odds I would say a school is much more likely of a student or stranger going off then the cop that has been protecting them. I would say the odds of the school getting hit by a meteor are much greater. So the benefit out weighs the possible risk by a huge favor.

 

[lowsingle]

yeah, lets just allow military and police to have guns...

also, since banning things gets rid of them, lets ban drugs and murder

 

[lowsingle]

well since we made guns illegal we have not had any of the problems you seem to be talking about. in fact the only GUN problems have been criminals shooting other criminals (and the occasional stray bullet)

and your question "Do you or do you not have a right to self defense" well i'm 43 years old and have not needed a gun to defend myself.


now that said, it seems Americans want guns and i'm not in a position to tell you what you should and shouldn't do. just stop the "you need guns to defend yourself" crap....because that is just a lie.

youre not 43 andrew

 

[Madmick]

Fragging has been around for a while. Playing the odds I would say a school is much more likely of a student or stranger going off then the cop that has been protecting them. I would say the odds of the school getting hit by a meteor are much greater. So the benefit out weighs the possible risk by a huge favor.

I'm not so sure. One problem with an armed guard is that- as Virginia Tech demonstrated- an armed guard who is ambushed can be killed. As pro-gun zealots love to point out...knives and other weapons can be very effective killing instruments. There's a possibility that you're giving more psychos access to that weapon if they choose to eliminate the guard first. After all, the element of surprise is lost in a mass shooting spree as soon as the first shots are fired. It only makes sense.

Furthermore, there is still the possibility that one could flip. Then you have to try to quantify how many lives are saved by armed police, how much it costs (insurance is likely a major concern here), and how the police presence agitates and arguably escalates the traditional routine and structure of a K-12 school; to explicate, I recall seeing an article that mentioned that the research hasn't decisively indicated that armed guards in schools have deterred violence, but on the other hand, there is a strong indication that the rates of arrest among the student body (including for felonies) increases substantially. There are numerous costs to be considered.

 

[Byron Carter]

I'm not so sure. One problem with an armed guard is that- as Virginia Tech demonstrated- an armed guard who is ambushed can be killed. As pro-gun zealots love to point out...knives and other weapons can be very effective killing instruments. There's a possibility that you're giving more psychos access to that weapon if they choose to eliminate the guard first. After all, the element of surprise is lost in a mass shooting spree as soon as the first shots are fired. It only makes sense.

Furthermore, there is still the possibility that one could flip. Then you have to try to quantify how many lives are saved by armed police, how much it costs (insurance is likely a major concern here), and how the police presence agitates and arguably escalates the traditional routine and structure of a K-12 school; to explicate, I recall seeing an article that mentioned that the research hasn't decisively indicated that armed guards in schools have deterred violence, but on the other hand, there is a strong indication that the rates of arrest among the student body (including for felonies) increases substantially. There are numerous costs to be considered.

Once again, you're completely distorting facts.

The Virginia Tech mass shooting and the Virginia Tech ambushed officer are two different events, seperated by 4 years.

Armed resistance increases the chance of survival - it's not guaranteed. Fact.

 

[the ambush]

That sign would definitely deter potential shooters. That is, it will make them choose an easier target (i.e., a gun free zone).

All they really need to do is arm 1-2 people in the school, and then put that sign up. No more school shootings there, problem solved.

I never understood the opposition to armed personnel in a junior-grade school. Why not? It was typical for universities and colleges to have their own campus police division.

My biggest worry was more Sandy Hook shootings happening in the future.

 

[OldGoat]

Once again, you're completely distorting facts.

The Virginia Tech mass shooting and the Virginia Tech ambushed officer are two different events, seperated by 4 years.

Armed resistance increases the chance of survival - it's not guaranteed. Fact.

MadMick makes some good points about the costs/benefits to society due to the changed environment and how that impacts those in that environment directly and even by perception. Ultimately this is a mental health issue IMO.

 

[Happy Boy]

Did you watch the video? He wouldn't resort to name calling without being passionate about the cause.

How does pushing an agenda immediately equate to false support of said agenda?

You're giving him way too much credit.

Like I said, because he is a tabloid journalist at heart. His job was to create controversy to get imbeciles to read it and get outraged, and he does it well. The name calling, being intentionally divisive, being patronising to guests, all with the aim of controversy as controversy equals viewers.

Like I said though, it fundamentally didn't work. He isn't the right guy to do it, it just delayed the inevitable as he is such a plank and dull that even with these tactics it didn't matter.

 

[Jing]

Like I said, because he is a tabloid journalist at heart. His job was to create controversy to get imbeciles to read it and get outraged, and he does it well. The name calling, being intentionally divisive, being patronising to guests, all with the aim of controversy as controversy equals viewers.

Like I said though, it fundamentally didn't work. He isn't the right guy to do it, it just delayed the inevitable as he is such a plank and dull that even with these tactics it didn't matter.

And what's his aim now? More Twitter followers?

 

[Gregster]

Gun advocates have to grow up, I have never met one who isnt a giant man child. Their immaturity gets people killed for goodness sake!

...unlike gun-control advocates who insist that the *logically obvious* solution to any gun-related ills in America is to implement new laws (or strengthen existing laws) of the sort that for decades have only ever led to increased gun-related violence against law-abiding citizens, while declaring that those who disagree with the irrefutable/unimpeachable soundness of this logic must have some sort of deep-seated Freudian issues regarding their penises.

Why, just look at Piers himself:

"So...you believe Americans should have the right to own whatever firearms they wish?"

"Yes. You see, Piers..."

"OH, SURE! WELL, WHY NOT LET EVERYONE BUY A TANK!? HOW ABOUT A MISSILE LAUNCHER!? LET EVERYONE OWN AN ICBM IF THEY WISH!! HOORAY FOR THE 2ND AMENDMENT!!!"

Calm, measured, rational thinking...

 

[Gregster]

Hhaha yeah..what happens when all these Hero cops Byron wants in schools go nuts and start shooting students?

Oh, yeah...right. Because hero-cop shooting sprees have been, like, a *MAJOR* problem in the US that has all but spiralled totally out of control.

Thanks for doing your part to elevate the tone and overall quality of discourse on this topic out of the immmature, "man-child" quagmire that it's routinely dragged into by gun-hugging whackos like me.

 

[Gregster]

Link me a story where a police officer shot some kids for no reason at a school.

All the shootings at public I know of involved students.

Perhaps we should ban students from school. Every associated ill-- from shootings to fighting, bullying, substance abuse, and teen pregnancy-- would vanish!

 

[Gregster]

So are you saying it could never happen? Cops are not above being crazy and all it takes is one incident

Do you really think it makes sense to dismiss an idea simply due to the possibility of some negative outcome, no matter how ridiculously unlikely and far-fetched it may be? Especially considering that it's logically impossible to refute such outcomes by saying it's "impossible?"

Is there a major epidemic in the US involving cops who suddenly, and without warning, start mowing down civilians anywhere else cops go about enforcing the law while armed? Not that I'm aware of. So why would assigning them to police public schools (which, by the way, is not exactly unheard of as it is) going to push any of them over the edge?

 

[Kevin Rudd]

Your violent crime rate is much higher.

People are at the mercy of bigger, stronger, younger hooligans.

That's not the society I want to live in.

No it isn't, the definitions are very different between nations of what actually constitutes violent crime. Common assault for example is included in the UK definition but is excluded from the US definition.

 

[Gregster]

So we're all good hear except for the third. Where a young black guy got shot because he may have been reaching for something. Perfect gun abiding society we have here.

I thought he made it perfectly clear that our society is *NOT* perfect, but flawed, and as such we need to accept that the greater good comes with the price of some bad.

The First Amendment is a wonderful thing, but it has a price. To whit: it means putting up with drivel from racists, xenophobes, gay-bashers, religious fundies, "patriot militias," 9/11 Truthers, vapid talk shows like "The View," and pompous Limey toffs who move to the US and host current-events shows that emphasize trashing large segments of this country.

But putting up with all that is a price I gladly pay in exchange for free expression. Should I rethink this if someone chimes in with "Oh, yeah...what about the Westboro Baptist Church? There's your awesome First Amendment for ya!"

 

[Byron Carter]

No it isn't, the definitions are very different between nations of what actually constitutes violent crime. Common assault for example is included in the UK definition but is excluded from the US definition.

Bullshit.