Father of Newtown Victim Heckled

Thing1 said:
Is it possible for Superfreak to set the bar any lower for humanity?

SF - you should bail on this thread. Now. It's shameful.
Click to expand...

I am bailing this has made me sick. I don't understand how people could fault the child's own father for being emotional. It s depraved.
 
Thing1 said:
Oh, bull. You have nothing to go on for that - the idea that hundreds of new guns floating around a given school will somehow decrease violent incidents is bananas. Absolute bananas.
Click to expand...
the idea that banning guns in schools was to prevent mass killings.....and we see how that worked out. The idea that banning 'assault' weapons was to prevent something, and it did nothing. that 'absolute bananas' crap??? they call that insanity, you know, doing the same thing (bans) over and over again and expecting the same result.
 
SmarterthanYou said:
the idea that banning guns in schools was to prevent mass killings.....and we see how that worked out. The idea that banning 'assault' weapons was to prevent something, and it did nothing. that 'absolute bananas' crap??? they call that insanity, you know, doing the same thing (bans) over and over again and expecting the same result.
Click to expand...

The idea that anyone carrying a weapon would have prevented any of these incidents is sketchy at best - maybe it would have, maybe not. But introducing guns onto a school ground on the scale you're suggesting opens up an incredible # of new possibilities for violence, both accidental & intended.

That you cannot see that shows only how clouded your mind is on the issue of guns.
 
Thing1 said:
Oh, bull. You have nothing to go on for that - the idea that hundreds of new guns floating around a given school will somehow decrease violent incidents is bananas. Absolute bananas.
Click to expand...

Again, "funny how this is the only thing we haven't tried".
 
Thing1 said:
The idea that anyone carrying a weapon would have prevented any of these incidents is sketchy at best - maybe it would have, maybe not. But introducing guns onto a school ground on the scale you're suggesting opens up an incredible # of new possibilities for violence, both accidental & intended.

That you cannot see that shows only how clouded your mind is on the issue of guns.
Click to expand...
what I see is allowing guns in to school = the POSSIBILITY of more deaths while banning guns from schools guarantees more deaths. so now we know where YOU stand, more deaths of defenseless people.
 
The Dude said:
10,000 plus murders a year are more than enough, you skinhead NRAZI
Click to expand...

And we wonder why smoking pot is a crime.

If you want to trade a little liberty for order, you'll have neither.

The vast majority of gun shootings are because of prohibition.

Get rid of prohibition, and you'll see a lot less shootings.
 
SmarterthanYou said:
what I see is allowing guns in to school = the POSSIBILITY of more deaths while banning guns from schools guarantees more deaths. so now we know where YOU stand, more deaths of defenseless people.
Click to expand...

Way to honestly characterize my position - oh, and based on sound logic, as well.

With the post above - and many of your posts - you are basically saying, "I will lie, fabricate & say virtually anything I have to in order to support the pro-gun position. The truth doesn't matter; winning the argument does."

Thanks for clarifying that.
 
Effective protection involves hardening the target, it is why the President's kids go to a school with armed guards. That school always has armed guards regardless of whether the man in the White House has children or not, this is because the kids are targets.

The President's children are protected effectively, while our kids get a "no gun zone" sign and are targets for anybody who wants to kill many people and cause the most emotional harm with impunity, until the cops finally arrive much later than they were needed.

If I was one of these parents I would be suing the school district. If I were in the theater in Aurora I'd be suing that theater. Any place that puts up a no gun zone sign is, IMO, taking on 100% of the responsibility for unprotected targets and absolutely should hire some protection for those they have ensured would become targets. When seconds count the cops are minutes away, and Columbine has proved that there is no guarantee that when they get there they will be effective at all.

The highest chance that somebody can make an effective response is with somebody at the site and armed. To increase the chance you increase the number of those armed. (Teachers willing to protect kids by dying with them could be more effective if they were armed.)

One thing we know, the no gun zone signs are ineffective and do nothing at all to protect our children they only ensure the maximum number of deaths before the cops finally arrive.
 
Damocles said:
Effective protection involves hardening the target, it is why the President's kids go to a school with armed guards. That school always has armed guards regardless of whether the man in the White House has children or not, this is because the kids are targets.

The President's children are protected effectively, while our kids get a "no gun zone" sign and are targets for anybody who wants to kill many people and cause the most emotional harm with impunity, until the cops finally arrive much later than they were needed.

If I was one of these parents I would be suing the school district. If I were in the theater in Aurora I'd be suing that theater. Any place that puts up a no gun zone sign is, IMO, taking on 100% of the responsibility for unprotected targets and absolutely should hire some protection for those they have ensured would become targets. When seconds count the cops are minutes away, and Columbine has proved that there is no guarantee that when they get there they will be effective at all.
Click to expand...

Great post Damo!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top