Gun Laws Debate - Chambersburg, PA

Discuss the national Gun Laws debate in Chambersburg, PA.

Does the US need to reform its gun laws?

Chambersburg thinks we need reform.
Yes
 
62
Not at all
 
45
Undecided
 
0

Vote now in Chambersburg:

Since: Jul 12

Portland, Oregon

#1855 Mar 3, 2013
Marisa, i Bobby 6464 does not rescue anyone, dumb ass
Jimmy

Charlotte, NC

#1857 Mar 4, 2013
Dan the Man Chambersburg wrote:
Texas school employee shoots self at training class to arm teachers
You really can’t make this stuff up. A school maintenance worker in – wait for it – Texas was attending a concealed-carry class at the local school.
The school district was sponsoring the class as part of its program to arm teachers and other school employees, in response to the Sandy Hook Elementary massacre and the NRA’s call for America to arm its schools.
What could possibly go wrong?
You can guess what happened next.
The maintenance worker shot himself in the leg and had to get sent to the hospital, where he’s in fair condition.
Thousands of safety classes per year, an accident occurs at one and you make an ignorant post that implies that all of them are flawed.

I kid died during the last snow storm when he sat in his Dad's car to watch him shovel snow. The exhaust pipe was covered in snow and the child died from carbon monoxide exposure. Maybe cars are the problem.

Using an extremely low frequency occurrence as an example of a commonality is a logical fallacy. I think you already know that but continue to do it.

You lose again

Since: Sep 07

Valley Village, CA

#1858 Mar 4, 2013
Jimmy wrote:
<quoted text>
Thousands of safety classes per year, an accident occurs at one and you make an ignorant post that implies that all of them are flawed.
There are not thousands of safety classes _IN SCHOOLS_ every year.

The whole point is that increasing the number of guns _in schools_ will increase the number of accidents/crimes _in schools_ involving guns.

The argument from the NRA is that placing a gun in the hands of every teacher and janitor will result in LESS gun deaths.

This story demonstrates that placing the guns in the hands of safety instructors still results in an increase in gun accidents. What do you think is going to happen when you give the gun to someone who doesn't teach gun safety?
I kid died during the last snow storm when he sat in his Dad's car to watch him shovel snow. The exhaust pipe was covered in snow and the child died from carbon monoxide exposure. Maybe cars are the problem.
If we were suggesting putting a running car in every classroom, you would have a point.
Using an extremely low frequency occurrence as an example of a commonality is a logical fallacy. I think you already know that but continue to do it.
You lose again
A low frequency event multiplied by the MASSIVE increase in opportunities for that event caused by the placing of guns in the hands of hundreds of thousands of teachers would inevitably lead to a great number of events.

You do not stop gun deaths by increasing the number of guns in a room.

Since: May 12

Chambersburg, PA

#1859 Mar 4, 2013
Jimmy wrote:
<quoted text>
Thousands of safety classes per year, an accident occurs at one and you make an ignorant post that implies that all of them are flawed.
I kid died during the last snow storm when he sat in his Dad's car to watch him shovel snow. The exhaust pipe was covered in snow and the child died from carbon monoxide exposure. Maybe cars are the problem.
Using an extremely low frequency occurrence as an example of a commonality is a logical fallacy. I think you already know that but continue to do it.
You lose again
ROFLMAO! My, my, my - what a vivid imagination you have!

I posted a news article with NO comment of my one. None.

But you believe that I implied that all gun safety classes are flawed.

And you believe that my post was "ignorant" when it was just factual information.

And you believe that I posted a logical fallacy. What logical fallacy was that? The one you IMAGINED.

And after all this idiotic fantasy you have about what I implied and what I said, then you are irrational enough to believe that you won some argument.

You argued with a strawman of your own imagining and you WON! Congratulations - you're an idiot! LMAO!
Jimmy

Charlotte, NC

#1860 Mar 5, 2013
Dan the Man Chambersburg wrote:
Texas school employee shoots self at training class to arm teachers
You really can’t make this stuff up. A school maintenance worker in – wait for it – Texas was attending a concealed-carry class at the local school.
The school district was sponsoring the class as part of its program to arm teachers and other school employees, in response to the Sandy Hook Elementary massacre and the NRA’s call for America to arm its schools.
What could possibly go wrong?
You can guess what happened next.
The maintenance worker shot himself in the leg and had to get sent to the hospital, where he’s in fair condition.
No comment of your own huh? Want to re-read your post and explain how you had no agenda in your post?

"What could possibly go wrong?"
"You can guess what happened next."
"You really can't make this stuff up."
Jimmy

Charlotte, NC

#1861 Mar 5, 2013
Nuggin wrote:
<quoted text>
There are not thousands of safety classes _IN SCHOOLS_ every year.
The whole point is that increasing the number of guns _in schools_ will increase the number of accidents/crimes _in schools_ involving guns.
The argument from the NRA is that placing a gun in the hands of every teacher and janitor will result in LESS gun deaths.
This story demonstrates that placing the guns in the hands of safety instructors still results in an increase in gun accidents. What do you think is going to happen when you give the gun to someone who doesn't teach gun safety?
<quoted text>
If we were suggesting putting a running car in every classroom, you would have a point.
<quoted text>
A low frequency event multiplied by the MASSIVE increase in opportunities for that event caused by the placing of guns in the hands of hundreds of thousands of teachers would inevitably lead to a great number of events.
You do not stop gun deaths by increasing the number of guns in a room.
Of course there aren't thousands of safety classes in schools, but there are thousands each year. This is more of an example of the instructor and not the students. The NRA isn't advocating that EVERY teacher and janitor have a gun by the way.

Accidents occur everywhere. That was my point about the kid in the car. No one can prevent every accident. That is what the gun control advocates are trying to pin on the pro gun side. ANY accident is an example of how bad guns are. That's simply not true. You couldn't name one thing that hasn't had accidents and still the gun control lobby cites individual events as examples of everyday occurrences.

Suggesting that having trained individuals in a school that part of their responsibilities are to protect the children from a gunman somehow makes the children MORE vulnerable is ludicrous. Would having additional secret service agents around the president somehow make him MORE vulnerable? We are not talking about flagging homeless people down and handing them a gun. We are talking about vetted and trained individuals with a vested interest in protecting the students.

I think you do stop gun deaths by additional guns. We apply it to foreign policy and crime regularly. "Don't do the crime if you can't do the time" etc... Nuclear deterrent etc...

If potential gunmen were aware that they were going to have a fight on their hands before going into their target, they might hesitate.

Take a look at how they behave when the police arrive. Rarely (if ever) do they put up a fight. Usually, when the cops arrive the shooters huddle down and kill themselves. Then the paper has a blurb about the guns and ammo that they had with them.

Since: May 12

Chambersburg, PA

#1862 Mar 5, 2013
Jimmy wrote:
<quoted text>
No comment of your own huh? Want to re-read your post and explain how you had no agenda in your post?
"What could possibly go wrong?"
"You can guess what happened next."
"You really can't make this stuff up."
Nope, no comment of my own. I just pasted an article without comment.
Jimmy

Charlotte, NC

#1863 Mar 5, 2013
Dan the Man Chambersburg wrote:
<quoted text>
Nope, no comment of my own. I just pasted an article without comment.
Yeah. You plagiarized an article. You pasted it as if it were your comments. You pasted the link and then the article. I'm more than interested why you pasted the article separate without reference as if they were your comments.

Standard you.

Since: May 12

Chambersburg, PA

#1864 Mar 5, 2013
Jimmy wrote:
<quoted text>
Yeah. You plagiarized an article. You pasted it as if it were your comments. You pasted the link and then the article. I'm more than interested why you pasted the article separate without reference as if they were your comments.
Standard you.
*sigh*

Once again for the slow-witted.

AS I HAVE SAID BEFORE - Topix deletes posts with links in them that it doesn't like. There is no discernible pattern to the deletions. So unless I know a link has worked before, when I want people to be able to be able to link to the pasted article I paste the link in a separate post. That way if it's deleted, everything isn't lost.

See? No trickery, Matt. Just my SOP on Topix. It's not my fault you're too dim to comprehend it.

Since: Sep 07

Valley Village, CA

#1865 Mar 5, 2013
Jimmy wrote:
Accidents occur everywhere. That was my point about the kid in the car. No one can prevent every accident. That is what the gun control advocates are trying to pin on the pro gun side. ANY accident is an example of how bad guns are. That's simply not true. You couldn't name one thing that hasn't had accidents and still the gun control lobby cites individual events as examples of everyday occurrences.
The point is this:
What is the ratio of accidents/stated purpose?

I'm sure someone out there has been accidentally killed by a spoon.
However, the ratio of accidental spoon deaths to people who have successfully used a spoon for their stated purpose is ridiculously one sided.

When it comes to guns because purchased for the purpose of stopping a crime, that ratio is far less lopsided.

People are, in fact, 42x more likely to be killed by their own gun than they are to use their own gun to prevent a violent crime.

Now, that includes accidents, suicides, people who take your gun and shoot you with it, murder of you by family member, etc.

The point is this - the CLAIM being made by the NRA is that having hand guns is an effective way to prevent being killed BY guns.

That's simply NOT true. If you own a hand gun, you are FAR more likely to die by gun than you are if you don't own a hand gun.

And before you go crazy accusing me of being anti-gun, I grew up hunting. My father still hunts. I was on the varsity shooting team at my high school in suburban Conn, not exactly a pro-gun state.

I don't have any problem with rifles and shotguns for target shooting or hunting. However, handguns are frequently in the hands of people who lack the maturity or intellect to be permitted to own, much less carry, a weapon.
Suggesting that having trained individuals in a school that part of their responsibilities are to protect the children from a gunman somehow makes the children MORE vulnerable is ludicrous.
There was a trained and armed security guard at Columbine. Did it stop the killings? No.

The likelihood of an accidental discharge is FAR greater than the likelihood of an armed guard being present at a school during an attack and actually stopping it.
I think you do stop gun deaths by additional guns.
That may be what you think, but you are wrong.
Nuclear deterrent etc...
Then why are we worried about N. Korea and trying to stop Iran from getting nukes. If having nukes means they won't use nukes, then why don't we give nukes to all the countries in the middle east?
If potential gunmen were aware that they were going to have a fight on their hands before going into their target, they might hesitate.
Nope. You are assuming that mass murderers are rational people who have a specific target in mind and that if that target is somehow unavailable they will go home and change their minds.

NOT the case.
Take a look at how they behave when the police arrive. Rarely (if ever) do they put up a fight. Usually, when the cops arrive the shooters huddle down and kill themselves. Then the paper has a blurb about the guns and ammo that they had with them.
When the police arrive they are arriving in large numbers after the killer has already done what he's doing.

Arming a single security guard in a school is not going to present the same sort of response.

So, now you are talking about arming 10 security guards in each school so as to be able to respond with multiple people to an incident no matter where in the school it occurs.

So, let's see.... 70,000 schools X 10 armed people in each school... 700,000 armed guards.

One school shooting a year on average....

So, 700,000 x (number of school days? 200? I don't know for sure)= 140,000,000 days of possible accidents

140 MILLION days worth of possible accidents to _MAYBE_ deter someone who by definition is not rational.

How rare is an accident? Care to do that math?
Jimmy

Charlotte, NC

#1866 Mar 5, 2013
Dan the Man Chambersburg wrote:
<quoted text>
*sigh*
Once again for the slow-witted.
AS I HAVE SAID BEFORE - Topix deletes posts with links in them that it doesn't like. There is no discernible pattern to the deletions. So unless I know a link has worked before, when I want people to be able to be able to link to the pasted article I paste the link in a separate post. That way if it's deleted, everything isn't lost.
See? No trickery, Matt. Just my SOP on Topix. It's not my fault you're too dim to comprehend it.
Another lie.

You cut and pasted the article BEFORE you linked it. Furthermore, you wrote nothing about it being someone else's thoughts when you posted it.

How many times have you posted someone else's thoughts as your own in the past? You've cited studies in many of your posts, but THIS particular time you're cautious.

Baloney
Jimmy

Charlotte, NC

#1867 Mar 5, 2013
Dan the Man Chambersburg wrote:
Dorner case shows folly of arming oneself to combat government
The nutty notion that a citizen can be heavily enough armed to fight off the government went up in smoke near Big Bear Lake.
...
As of this writing, it's not clear what suspected killer Christopher Dorner had in his arsenal. But it was enough to hold off law enforcement in Tuesday's shootout until someone upped the firepower, literally, by lobbying incendiary tear gas into the cabin where the axed cop apparently was making a last stand against the government.
The government virtually always wins.
Dorner could have read up on Randy Weaver at Ruby Ridge. Or the Branch Davidians near Waco.
...
Guns to overthrow tyranny, irrational. That's why our founders gave us the ballot box.
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-cap-g...
Here's one
Jimmy

Charlotte, NC

#1868 Mar 5, 2013
Dan the Man Chambersburg wrote:
There simply is no evidence that video games lead to murderous gun rampages.
----------
Shooting in the Dark
Social scientists have been studying and debating the effects of media violence on behavior since the 1950s, and video games in particular since the 1980s. The issue is especially relevant today, because the games are more realistic and bloodier than ever, and because most American boys play them at some point. Girls play at lower rates and are significantly less likely to play violent games.
A burst of new research has begun to clarify what can and cannot be said about the effects of violent gaming. Playing the games can and does stir hostile urges and mildly aggressive behavior in the short term. Moreover, youngsters who develop a gaming habit can become slightly more aggressive — as measured by clashes with peers, for instance — at least over a period of a year or two.
Yet it is not at all clear whether, over longer periods, such a habit increases the likelihood that a person will commit a violent crime, like murder, rape, or assault, much less a Newtown-like massacre.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/12/science/stu... ;
----------
Guns, however, are involved in every mass shooting.
Another
Jimmy

Charlotte, NC

#1869 Mar 5, 2013
Dan the Man Chambersburg wrote:
Quinnipiac Poll: Pa. Voters Support Universal Background Checks 19 to 1
If Pa. voters had their say today, three of President Obama’s top gun control priorities would become law.
According to the latest poll from Quinnipiac, Pa. has near-unanimous public support for universal background checks (95% to 5%) and healthy support for a ban on assault weapons (60% to 37%) and high capacity magazine clips (59% to 39%).
http://www.politicspa.com/quinnipiac-poll-pa-...
Another.

You get the point.

Since: May 12

Chambersburg, PA

#1870 Mar 5, 2013
Jimmy wrote:
<quoted text>
Another lie.
You cut and pasted the article BEFORE you linked it. Furthermore, you wrote nothing about it being someone else's thoughts when you posted it.
How many times have you posted someone else's thoughts as your own in the past? You've cited studies in many of your posts, but THIS particular time you're cautious.
Baloney
I posted the article then I posted the link. Plain, clear, and obvious. It's really not complicated at all.

Just because you're too stupid to recognize quoted text WITH A LINK, doesn't make me a liar or a plagiarist.

Since: May 12

Chambersburg, PA

#1871 Mar 5, 2013
Jimmy wrote:
<quoted text>
Here's one
Right. Topix allows LATimes links.

Since: May 12

Chambersburg, PA

#1872 Mar 5, 2013
Jimmy wrote:
<quoted text>
Another
Right. Topix allows NYTimes links.

AS I SAID BEFORE - There is no discernible pattern to the deletions. So unless I know a link has worked before, I paste the link in a separate post.

Your stupidity doesn't make me a liar or a plagiarist.

Since: May 12

Chambersburg, PA

#1873 Mar 5, 2013
Jimmy wrote:
<quoted text>
Another.
You get the point.
The point is that you're too stupid to recognize quoted text AND the link to the text unless they're in the same post.

Yeah, I get it.

LOL!

Since: Mar 13

Denver, CO

#1874 Mar 5, 2013
I do think it is a little too easy to get a gun but I definitely don't think we should restrict the types of guns or the size of the magazines we're allowed.

I also believe a nonviolent felon should have his/her 2nd Amendment right restored after they have payed their dues and shown they can be a responsible citizen. I say decade is enough proof.

I started this petition and I hope all of you all sign it and share.

https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/res...

Since: Sep 07

Valley Village, CA

#1875 Mar 5, 2013
billyg420 wrote:
I do think it is a little too easy to get a gun but I definitely don't think we should restrict the types of guns or the size of the magazines we're allowed.
Would you allow an average citizen to carry hand grenade for self protection?

What about a surface to air missile?

The 2nd Amendment doesn't say "guns" it says "arms".

Why do we allow something and not others?

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Chambersburg Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Chambersburg renewable energy plant to change h... Jul 24 power 2
News Police log (Aug '08) Jul 23 none 23
Song Game (Jun '11) Jul 21 Analog man 483
Word Game _ Change A Letter (Jun '11) Jul 18 Analog man 581
Captian America (of Franklin County) (Sep '11) Jul 6 Grady Wilson 18
News Big retailer -- perhaps Wal-Mart -- planned for... (Jul '08) Jun 30 bubba 159
let's play post one word only ! (Sep '09) Jun 29 Analog man 221
Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]