- Joined
- Sep 13, 2007
- Messages
- 79,903
- Reaction score
- 20,981
- Location
- I love your hate.
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian
I'll bet anybody $10 the guy who got his finger bitten off doesn't have health insurance. Hahahahha.
I think he's 65 so he's on the government plan. :lol:
I'll bet anybody $10 the guy who got his finger bitten off doesn't have health insurance. Hahahahha.
Actually the article does make a point to say that he has medicare
The victim retrieved the finger and went to a hospital. There was no immediate word Thursday on whether doctors reattached his finger, or whether the man had health insurance.
my ilk? lol. did it ever occur to you that most of those multiple shootings were for a reason, however deluded, in the shooter's mind? perhaps they chose the school because they attended the school and wanted to kill classmates......and didn't have any issues with those who attend gun shows, or army barracks.Keep deflecting, it's okay I'm used to it from your ilk.
my ilk? lol. did it ever occur to you that most of those multiple shootings were for a reason, however deluded, in the shooter's mind? perhaps they chose the school because they attended the school and wanted to kill classmates......and didn't have any issues with those who attend gun shows, or army barracks.
most of those shooters understand they are going to die, they're not SCARED to attack a police station, they just have no interest in it. seriously, this part of your argument makes no sense.
seriously.
There is quite a bit of evidence suggesting that "Gun Free Zones" are a failure...
You need look not further than Columbine, VT, Or the Government building that was just recently shot up... Or even the malls that have been shot up.
My simple question of why "active shooters" don't pick Police Stations, Army Barracks, or NRA conventions is a very logical question.. I cannot seem to remember when the last time someone decided to shoot up a police station or army barracks here... Can you?
Why is that?
Please provide me evidence where allowing faculty and staff who are properly trained to handle firearms cannot or have not made the school any safer?
So it was all fun and games until someone lost a finger? :lol:
Let's not (continue to be) cynical about this. There's nothing cavalier about it either. From the Right, the issue really is about government involvement/control. From the Left, it's about having access to adequate and affordable health care.
Can we meet somewhere in the middle on this?
This is seriously all you have? I guess it's better than "wasn't this thread about a pinky?".
So, given the recent rash of shootings / mass murders in gun free zones... why do you continue supporting the notion that gun free zones work as you believe they should?
You know what the definition of insanity is, right?
Contrary to public perception, school homicides declined after 1993, although from 1997 to 1999 there was a series of copycat shootings stimulated by unprecedented media coverage.
However, a review of the National School Safety Center’s report (School Associated Violent Deaths :: National School Safety Center) identified 93 incidents when a student came onto school property and killed one or more persons over the worst ten-year period, 1992-3 to 2001-02. This means an average of about 9.3 cases per year or about once a month during the school year. Although we should strive to prevent all such cases, in a nation of 119,000 schools, a rate of 9.3 cases per year means that the average school can expect such an event about once every 12,800 years (119,000 divided by 9.3). This calculation is not intended to be a precise measure of risk, but an indication that there is a huge gap between the general perception of risk and the actual rate for the average school.
You have provided evidence that shooting can occur at "gun free zones". How is that evidence that they would be safer with guns? How is that evidence that more innocent people have died at them than at the hands of right wing nuts? Please support your assertions.
Actually they do.
CNN.com - Officer slain in*Virginia police station shooting - May 8, 2006
5 dead as U.S. soldier in Iraq opens fire on fellow troops - Los Angeles Times
You are the one making the assertions therefore the burden of proof falls on you to prove that there is evidence that faculty and staff who are properly trained to handle firearms can make a school safer. I'm charging that you are making such an argument under your own personal assumption with no empiracle evidence to back it up.
How likely are you to go to a school shooting? If anything statistics show that school shootings have decreased in the last few years and are not the best example to use when suggesting arming schools.
But then again your argument seems to be that if something fails in the decimal % then it is a complete failure :
I've already proven that Gun Free Zones are contributors to innocent lives being lost by pointing out recent history.
Also, there are quite a few schools who allow guns on their campuses in the form of trained faculty. They've yet to have an active shooter situation.. and they probably never will. But it doesn't hurt to have the tools at hand to protect their children should the situation ever arise.
Actually what you have proven is that there have been killings in Gun Free Zones. You have provided no empirical evidence to support the notion that it would have been safer had guns been present. Therefore you cannot make the argument that the zones being gun free contributed to innocent lives being lost. For a person who asks "logical" questions, you should understand this much.
Examples?
Also, you realize that a rural school in Texas has an entirely different environment than an inner city school in New Jersey, right? Or do you think that guns should be available everywhere without consideration of the population?
So, because it's been rationalized as "such a small percentage of incidents" that's supposed to make the families of the recently decease feel better? They were just freak anomolies in the numbers?
Nice.
This is seriously all you have? I guess it's better than "wasn't this thread about a pinky?".
Your emotionally charged response to, I'll use the words of Truth Detector here, FACTS, has been noticed and sent to the rightful authorities. The reality is that nothing is fool proof. Not even school shootings. Doesn't really matter how many guns there are or how many guns there aren't. What I do know is one thing relying on a decimal percentage of incidents to make a case for arming schools is highly dishonest. If anything the fact that there is such low and I say again low gun violence in our schools would indicate that 'Gun Free Zones' as they are called do work.
Yes...but wasn't this thread about a pinky?
That's great. Care to at least even make it look like you are trying to address the topic? :roll:
Texas and Utah are leading the way to remove emotional diatribes from keeping their kids safe.
Location / Population density aren't at debate.. given proper training.
I made the assertion based out of fact.
Look at recent history, and look at recent mass shootings in gun free zones. There is quite enough history now to prove this notion that gun free zones are a failure.. and only contribute needlessly to more deaths.
So...I can bite your pinky off and you'll be cool with it?
I'm still waiting for you to provide empirical evidence that...
Gun free zones lead to more innocent deaths than right wing nuts.
The presence of guns would make schools safer.
Given that you made those claims earlier, I'm sure you have some evidence to back them up.
As far as your "Location / Population density aren't at debate.. given proper training" what empirical evidence do you have to support this claim or are you just making another assumption as you seem quite prone to do.
Fact: the strength needed to bite off a guy's pinky is about the sane needed to bite into a baby carrot. Bon appetit.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?