In short that guns were a fancy way to throw away $14,000, whereas even a horiffically underpaid, overstrecthed, and ineffective counselor, still would have a good chance of helping at least one student sometime or another.

Unlikely, 40k students for 1 person who would see them for less then a couple minutes.

Another tidbit I find quite ironic about this is that those who seem to support this waste of $14K are also those who complain about government throwing away money...

How is it being thrown away? Just because you feel it is wasteful you keep saying it is.

At 1/28/13 03:56 PM, Ceratisa wrote: Unlikely, 40k students for 1 person who would see them for less then a couple minutes.

But it is way more likely that some child will get some tangible benefit from 2 minutes of an open ear than ANY school in the US will get from an assault rifle, let alone $14K worth of them. How is this so hard to understand?

How is it being thrown away? Just because you feel it is wasteful you keep saying it is.

OK, so let's break this down.

What use does an assault rifle have on a campus?

To go to war - yeah, NOT GOING TO HAPPEN.
To stop a school shooting - the school shooting is so remote a possibility
To deter a school shooting - Again, the school shooting is so remote a possibility

In other words, the only practical uses are so unlikely to happen that the school wasted money. Think of it like a school in Philadelphia spending $14K o a plan to prevent harm in the case of a subduction earthquake and ensuing tsunami. Sure, the possibility is scary, and it'd be nice for everyone to be prepared, but the liklihood of such an event happening is so incredibly low that the money is essentially being wasted. The chances are extremely high in favor that such an event will NEVER happen at the location, let alone happen within 3 generations of anyone who is alive today.

Sound like money wasted? Yeah, pretty much.

At 1/28/13 12:55 AM, RacistBassist wrote:

At 1/27/13 08:30 PM, Fim wrote:

And there's also a big difference between saying you can protect yourself, you just have to come up with the methods to do so, and saying that you aren't allowed the protection at all.

The policy's Obama has put forward still allow people to protect themselves to whatever extent that they want to. Just because he's not hot on putting guns in schools doesn't make him anti 2nd amendment.

Assault weapon is nothing but a term used to drum up fear. Need is not an issue. I don't need to have access to the internet. I don't need to be allowed to wear jeans. I don't need to have anything to drink besides water. That does not all of a sudden make it justified to restrict things.

The internet isn't designed to kill people, and so far I haven't heard of somebody killing a bunch of kids wielding a modem and an ethernet cable. The assault weapons ban may be illy defined I'll give you that, but the premise of making it harder to access more powerful weapons is good, and it was supported by Bush and even O'Reilly so I don't know why the NRA are trying to make this out to be a blue/red issue. There are a bunch of countries where they rate guns on a scale of restriction depending on how destructive they are.

Or we could just let those with valid CPLs be allowed to conceal carry, or have it be a part of the local police forces duties. Many place already do that second part, and there has been no issue with it.

That's a fine idea, but it's not what the NRA have said. They want a armed guard in every school, which as I've just outlined is unfeasible and doesn't even have the evidence to support it that it actually stops mass shooters.

Mass shootings get stopped in their tracks if there's someone armed. Almost every single mass shooting ends the moment people start meeting the assailant/s with force. Columbine had a rent a cop (In the sense of no idea how to respond) at distances outside of a handguns effective range responding with a handgun.

They do eventually, but like I said the armed security at Columbine and Virginia Tech proved incapable of stopping those mass shooting. So I don't think rolling out an extensive 1/8th of the entire police force of the US and posting them in schools is a smart idea, the NRA need to go back to the drawing board on this one.

Obama: "I go shooting all the time"

what a ass even if its just to get approval from gun owners (which he won't).

Don't even argue with people who bring up how armed security hasn't stopped mass shootings from being what they became. It is a logical fallacy.

Armed security sometimes present with some mass shootings, they still happened, so armed security must not work.

But the real issue is we simply don't know how many times a mass shootings never became a mass shooting because of security.

We don't call these events "attempted mass shootings" We usually just hear about how much ammo and crap the guy had before he got caught. Or how someone was stopped after opening fire on someone else. Nor do we know how often mass shootings haven't occurred because of the presence of armed security personnel.

At 1/28/13 06:07 PM, Fim wrote: The assault weapons ban may be illy defined I'll give you that, but the premise of making it harder to access more powerful weapons is good, ... There are a bunch of countries where they rate guns on a scale of restriction depending on how destructive they are.

If this is their goal...then they have things backwards. As I have repeatedly shown: assault rifles are not that powerful. This is not a political subjective based upon nationality, ideology, or being part of a particular subculture. This is physics. As we have seen time and time again...the most destructive firearms out there are handguns followed by shotguns at the close ranges where most crime takes place.

Or we could just let those with valid CPLs be allowed to conceal carry, or have it be a part of the local police forces duties. Many place already do that second part, and there has been no issue with it.

They do eventually, but like I said the armed security at Columbine and Virginia Tech proved incapable of stopping those mass shooting. So I don't think rolling out an extensive 1/8th of the entire police force of the US and posting them in schools is a smart idea, the NRA need to go back to the drawing board on this one.

On this I actually agree with you. In many cases armed guards tend to get taken out first in a surprise attack. This gives the shooter another firearm as well as more ammo. Furthermore, when police do arrive...it is the culmination of their suicide ritual therefore the bullets really start flying. However, in a few cases when a CCW holder is present and the sacrificial lambs can fight back...the massacre ends sooner with the shooter putting a bullet in their own brain instead of others.

In my teacher's union we've been having some spirited discussion about arming teachers. Suprising...more and more teachers are wanting the right to have CCW in their classrooms.

At 1/28/13 07:34 PM, Tony-DarkGrave wrote: Obama: "I go shooting all the time"

what a ass even if its just to get approval from gun owners (which he won't).

I saw this and the NRA response and was laughing, seriously? Obama is actually trying to appeal to gun owners and be more positive, how does this make him an asshole? He's just trying to play nice. The real asshole is the NRA and their ad.

I saw this and the NRA response and was laughing, seriously? Obama is actually trying to appeal to gun owners and be more positive, how does this make him an asshole? He's just trying to play nice. The real asshole is the NRA and their ad.

Not stating the true purpose of the 2nd is douchey.

At 1/28/13 11:39 PM, Warforger wrote: I saw this and the NRA response and was laughing, seriously? Obama is actually trying to appeal to gun owners and be more positive, how does this make him an asshole?

Because he's PANDERING to them (patronizing them) while trying to take their guns.

Oh my god! A POLITICIAN is PANDERING?!!? And he's taking their guns?? A statement which has yet to be demonstrated and is in itself a regurgitation of pro-NRA pandering?! Aaaahhhh oh this country really has gone to hell.

At 1/29/13 02:36 AM, Feoric wrote: Oh my god! A POLITICIAN is PANDERING?!!? And he's taking their guns?? A statement which has yet to be demonstrated and is in itself a regurgitation of pro-NRA pandering?! Aaaahhhh oh this country really has gone to hell.

Do you feel banning weapons based on looks is stupid and ineffective policy?

At 1/29/13 10:05 AM, Ceratisa wrote: Do you feel banning weapons based on looks is stupid and ineffective policy?

Yep.

Do you feel that the AWB has any possibility of passing Congress? Do you feel Obama actually wants it to pass? Do you feel it's not simply a bargaining chip for negotiations?

At 1/29/13 11:05 AM, Feoric wrote:

Yep.

So you do not support the AWB?

Do you feel that the AWB has any possibility of passing Congress? Do you feel Obama actually wants it to pass? Do you feel it's not simply a bargaining chip for negotiations?

I give it a 50/50 shot. Pro-gun control groups are more vocal and better funded now than in 1994. There also seems to be a slight public opinion advantage in their favor. Plus emotion is on their side which is a better sale than mathematical models and fact which are more on the pro-gun side.

At 1/28/13 11:51 PM, Ceratisa wrote: Not stating the true purpose of the 2nd is douchey.

You mean to form a militia and not to give every idiot, person with an anger problem, person with mental illness, criminal a free supply of guns (largely stolen from honest but stupider than fuck people who can't put their gun in a safe place)?

Sounds like you're missing the prpose of the 2nd Amendment.

At 1/29/13 12:57 AM, LemonCrush wrote: Because he's PANDERING to them (patronizing them) while trying to take their guns.

Yet you support the NRA's commercial which is pandering to the NRA people whilst supporting overtly anti-American sentiments? Go to China you communist.

At 1/29/13 11:28 AM, TheMason wrote: So you do not support the AWB?

Nope. I do not support the AWB.

I give it a 50/50 shot. Pro-gun control groups are more vocal and better funded now than in 1994. There also seems to be a slight public opinion advantage in their favor. Plus emotion is on their side which is a better sale than mathematical models and fact which are more on the pro-gun side.

It's not getting through the House. There's zero chance. It's nothing more than a bargaining chip.

At 1/29/13 02:36 AM, Feoric wrote: Oh my god! A POLITICIAN is PANDERING?!!? And he's taking their guns?? A statement which has yet to be demonstrated and is in itself a regurgitation of pro-NRA pandering?! Aaaahhhh oh this country really has gone to hell.

The NRA isn't pandering, they're bringing up a legitimate point

The President says he needs military style weapons to protect himself.
But average Americans? No, you can't even have something that even looks military

I mean, if the president is relying on these weapons for safety, why can I not have them for the same purpose

FWIW, I don't support politicians who pander to people. Sorry.

At 1/29/13 11:48 AM, Camarohusky wrote: Yet you support the NRA's commercial which is pandering to the NRA people whilst supporting overtly anti-American sentiments? Go to China you communist.

The NRA is not pandering. They're bringing up a legitimate point that it's hypocritical for the president to say he needs guns for safety, but no one else does.

At 1/29/13 12:24 PM, Feoric wrote: It's not getting through the House. There's zero chance. It's nothing more than a bargaining chip.

Just like it didn't last time, right?

At 1/29/13 01:46 PM, LemonCrush wrote: Just like it didn't last time, right?

Yes, actually. I know you're being sarcastic but you're unintentionally right. Remember all those times the bill reached the House floor for a vote to be renewed since it expired in 2004? And remember both George Bush and John Kerry voicing their support for it's renewal on the '04 campaign trail? And public polling showed 77% of people in favor of renewing it in April of 04? Yet it was never renewed?

I've already said this before but I'll repeat it: I will ask Tom or whoever to delete my account if a renewed AWB passes Congress. Anyone willing to match my bet?

At 1/29/13 01:44 PM, LemonCrush wrote: They're bringing up a legitimate point that it's hypocritical for the president to say he needs guns for safety, but no one else does.

Legitimate my ass. They are doing nothing but raising a very anti-American sentiment in order to scare you into believing something that IS NOT TRUE.

It's called conservative tactics and you've bought it hook line and sinker. They hoped you would abandon all reason and they were right. (at least the NRA as an organization can do SOMETHING right.)

But that was my point, to ensure the government is in check by its citizens. Our own president refused to acknowledge that fact. That was all I said.

At 1/29/13 02:03 PM, Feoric wrote: Yes, actually. I know you're being sarcastic but you're unintentionally right. Remember all those times the bill reached the House floor for a vote to be renewed since it expired in 2004?

I'm talking the one that happened in the Clinton era ;)

At 1/29/13 02:58 PM, Camarohusky wrote: Legitimate my ass. They are doing nothing but raising a very anti-American sentiment in order to scare you into believing something that IS NOT TRUE.

No they're fucking not. They're pointing out that Obama wants to ban an inanimate object, yet relies on those same inanimate objects for his own safety.

:They hoped you would abandon all reason and they were right. (at least the NRA as an organization can do SOMETHING right.)

LOL. Democrats do this far more often than Republicans do.

"Look look over here! We used to be the party of racism and segregation...but look, we have a black guy. And we have a woman too! See, we're not racist or sexist. Really."

At 1/29/13 05:03 PM, LemonCrush wrote: I'm talking the one that happened in the Clinton era ;)

I know. It expired in 2004 and there were numerous attempts to get it renewed when the vast majority of Americans was in favor of doing so. Zero times did it ever get to the House. What makes you think this time it's different?

At 1/29/13 05:13 PM, Feoric wrote:

At 1/29/13 05:03 PM, LemonCrush wrote: I'm talking the one that happened in the Clinton era ;)

I know. It expired in 2004 and there were numerous attempts to get it renewed when the vast majority of Americans was in favor of doing so. Zero times did it ever get to the House. What makes you think this time it's different?

Things get pushed all the time while America is still interested. Once the public loses interest pushing your agenda either becomes much harder, or much easier.

At 1/29/13 05:23 PM, Ceratisa wrote: Things get pushed all the time while America is still interested. Once the public loses interest pushing your agenda either becomes much harder, or much easier.

We never really lost interest though. Polling in favor of renewing the AWB is still high.

At 1/28/13 11:51 PM, Ceratisa wrote: Not stating the true purpose of the 2nd is douchey.

And that was the NRA's response. The true purpose of the 2nd Amendment is to maintain a militia, I for one hope that the NRA doesn't maintain a militia. But that doesn't change my point, the NRA launches a full on attack ad containing nothing productive to bring to discussion and is just full of personal attacks against Obama and other prominent Democrats, Obama responds by saying "I like shooting" and he gets called an asshole by the NRA for saying that. Does anyone else not see something wrong with that?

At 1/29/13 12:57 AM, LemonCrush wrote: Because he's PANDERING to them (patronizing them) while trying to take their guns.

Oh I get it, he's trying to appeal to people so when he does it it's called pandering, otherwise if he doesn't pander to them he's ignoring their opinion like the tyrant he is. Oh whatever he does he's evil, if he fights a ban against Assault rifles the NRA will try to weaken him, if he goes for it the NRA will try to weaken him, my isn't the choice so obvious.

It should be obvious by now that people are going to see whatever they want to see and think whatever they want to think, no matter how much mental gymnastics they have to go through. This is apparent to everyone except the ones doing just that. Obama is not taking your guns, he's not taking the ability away to defend yourself, yadda yadda, but if you really want to believe all of that is true then it doesn't really matter. This ad makes perfect logical sense to you, because you want it to, not because it actually does.

At 1/29/13 05:39 PM, Feoric wrote:

At 1/29/13 05:23 PM, Ceratisa wrote: Things get pushed all the time while America is still interested. Once the public loses interest pushing your agenda either becomes much harder, or much easier.

We never really lost interest though. Polling in favor of renewing the AWB is still high.

That doesn't have to do with interest though, you don't need to be interested in anything particularly to have an opinion on it when it comes to things like that. And AWB polling just reflects the need for the public to feel better about doing nothing. "Assault Weapons" are classified as such based on looks, not functionality.

At 1/29/13 05:13 PM, Feoric wrote: I know. It expired in 2004 and there were numerous attempts to get it renewed when the vast majority of Americans was in favor of doing so. Zero times did it ever get to the House. What makes you think this time it's different?

Same reason it did in 94. Same reason there are gun bans in a lot of major cities (LA, Chicago, DC). Same reason most guns are now illegal in New York State.

Idiocy. And now we have emotional appeal of a school shooting, and an opportunist president who has nothing to go on but emotional appeal, and ends up whining and bitching until he gets his way.