C) A fellow student who committed mass murder.
The gun is irrelevant. They were used to further a political agenda. That we know.
Heh, funny.
Yeah, I’m really not sure how the person committing mass murder being one of their classmates changes the calculus here. A deranged lunatic got their hands on a murder weapon and made good use of it.
Maybe the argument is that the core problem is that the deranged people exist either way? Well, okay, sure - but that’s a pretty intractable problem. Some percentage of the population is going to end up being crazy. That’s why this kind of thing happens on a regular basis basically everywhere else in the world - because no matter what you do to limit the access deranged, dangerous people to deadly weaponry, they’ll find a way.
…Oh. Wait. No, this is pretty much a US thing.
Also, way to completely ignore my point and change the topic. Care to address what I had to say, or is that not something you’re interested in?
If you don’t address the problem then the solution isn’t obtainable.
Yes intractable would be a good word to describe it. While there aren’t many people who go postal over cold french fries it’s highly likely that the ones who do were not a surprise to the people around them.
You can’t remove all the ways possible for the deranged to kill people on a large scale. All you can do is make it harder to defend yourself against them.
Slippery slope has generally been followed by “fallacy”.
So, still no numbers? No internal poll by the NRA on gun registration? Linking an NRA opinion article doesn’t exactly disprove anything, except that the NRA as a whole is against registration.
The disconnect is what the problem is perceived to be. You think it’s crazy people. Parkland protestors seem to think it’s easy access to firearms.
And yet, I can’t buy a tank to protect my property.
**
Nope, no numbers. The NRA does not poll its members. Anyone who claims otherwise is wrong.
There is nothing to disprove. A small poll using self identified NRA members does not speak for any percentage of the actual NRA membership. The page I linked to does, as you admitted yourself.
(Bolding mine.)
It’s always funny when someone responds to your post to make an argument you already addressed in your post. Almost as if they’re not paying attention to what you’re saying at all.
True. Everyone knows that. Literally everyone. I cannot imagine why bothered to waste the energy to type that.
False. You can do a lot of other things. Why should anyone take you seriously when you make so many objectively false statements?
If you live in a state that allows it, sure you can.
how is it false? You made a statement with nothing to back it up.
What tool does a police officer use when confronted with one or more violent people?
Ah, I see the problem: doesn’t know what "false"means. :rolleyes:
The first tool he uses should be his brain. The second tool he uses should be his voice.
a lovely thought (I’d call it a soundbite) to a situation that is almost universally a planned event. In the real world a LEO relies on a gun for defense. They’re entitled to defend themselves and so is everybody else.
Republicans don’t think so. They want to deny Americans the most effective tool available for self-defense. Gun control laws work, as proven by the rest of the world. If you want to defend yourself, then you should be trying to get better gun control laws in place. Like these students are doing. But the NRA doesn’t want people to be able to defend themselves.
Are you entering this post in the “Dumbest Post of 2018” contest? You’ve got a real contender there, to be sure.
If a cop is using his gun without using his brain, he’s a bad cop.
If a cop is using his gun without first using his mouth, he’s prolly a bad cop.
If a cop is using his gun without first trying to not use his gun, he’s a bad cop.
We had an officer in my city holster her gun to talk with an armed suspect. He shot her dead. Who could have predicted that one.
The time for conversation is after the threat has been removed. Schools are no exception.
Look out, everyone! He’s got an anecdote!
“Shoot first and ask questions later” is not just bad policing, it’s moronic and barbaric. I note you didn’t even bother considering other non-lethal options, such as batons or tasers. Just whip out the gun and shoot them, right?
Yes, during a mass murder event I wouldn’t bother with non-lethal options. I think using students as soft targets is barbaric. If you want to stand in front of a gun wielding nut-job and discuss their feelings that’s your business but don’t expect law enforcement to do it.
There is a difference between an armed (or suspected armed, or resisting) subject and an active shooter.
Okay. And on the other hand, we have a case like Stephan Mader’s and Ronald Williams’s, where the officer, presented with a disoriented, mentally ill suspect wielding a gun, made the call that the person in question was probably aiming for “suicide by cop” and opted to put his life on the line. It later turned out (and the man’s girlfriend had reported to 911, although the officers didn’t know that) that the gun was not loaded. A different officer who showed up on the scene shot and killed Williams, and Mader was fired because he made a risky judgment call that was absolutely, 100% correct and didn’t kill an unarmed man.
So, anecdote for anecdote, it turns out that sometimes, cops shooting first and asking questions never leads to innocent people dying when they really didn’t had to, and sometimes, cops not shooting first and asking questions never leads to officers dying. Kind of a wash, isn’t it?
On the other other hand, we have a cases like that of Tamir Rice, where an officer opened fire on a fucking 12-year-old who was not armed. Or like the case of Philando Castile, where a trigger-happy officer asks for Castile’s identification, freaks out when he tries to comply, and kills him. Or like the case of Laquan McDonald, where a black teenager carrying a knife was shot while walking away from the cops, then shot 15 more times while on the ground. Or the case of Stephon Alonzo Clark, who was shot 20 times by police who mistook his cell phone for a gun. Or the case of Walter Scott, who was just straight-up murdered by a police officer who later tried to cover it up. Or whatever the fuck you want to call this complete blinkered fucking insanity.
Now, call me crazy, but when “policeman” doesn’t even make the list of the top 10 most dangerous jobs in America (behind things like “Grounds maintenance workers” and “Truck and Sales Drivers”), and most policeman deaths come from accidents (mostly car crashes) rather than from being shot (a grand total of 33 in 2013), and meanwhile we just keep hearing reports of police officers shooting innocent people or reaching for their firearms much too fast… Well, I think your anecdote might be exactly the wrong direction to push policing.
And just to clarify, I don’t think police work should be more dangerous. I don’t want to see officers hurt or killed in the line of duty. But at a certain point, we have to accept certain tradeoffs in how much danger police officers are willing to accept vs. how much danger civilians are forced to accept, and I think that that tradeoff is currently phenomenally bad. Police officers must accept virtually no risk before they’re allowed and encouraged (or, as the above case with Stephan Mader demonstrates, obligated) to use deadly force. They are allowed to kill basically with impunity, which is bad enough when it comes to honest cops - by all accounts, Jeronimo Yanez was a good person before he panicked and gunned down a father in front of his wife and children - and downright horrific when it comes to corrupt or dishonest cops. Without that bystander taking a video of the entire event, is there a snowball’s chance in hell Michael Slager would have been convicted of murder? Even with the video, the jury was deadlocked in the first trial, in what should have been the most open-and-shut case since the trial of Anders Breivik.
The point is, in some cases, it should be acceptable for the police to have take some kind of risk, and unacceptable to avoid the risk of, say, taking down a man walking away from you with a knife by shooting them 16 cunt-gargling times. You seem to demand that we accept even greater risks as civilians in order to reduce the risk police officers on the job take. I think that given recent history, and given how the job of actually being a police officer is safer than it has ever been and safer than a great many professions where it’s not implied in the job’s social cachet that you risk your life for the sake of others, that demand is simply not reasonable.