Your daily terrorist bullshit.

[DaGaffer]

Just makes teachers target #1... then they can carry on at their leisure....

No, no, no. The teacher will have his weapon pointed at the students at all times, and the students will do the same. Country-wide Mexican stand-off; it’s the only sane choice.

 

[Jupitus]

No, no, no. The teacher will have his weapon pointed at the students at all times, and the students will do the same. Country-wide Mexican stand-off; it’s the only sane choice.

View: https://youtu.be/g6tR78d0cmA

 

[Embattle]

One of my favourite films, I got on Blu-ray even though I had it on DVD and VHS before that.

We have an America family friend who lives in Illinois which even by American standards has some of the most dangerous cities, she has quite a bit of money and doesn't spend it although recently she bought herself a new pickup and has got so concerned of having it stolen while driving that she wants to get a license to carry a concealed handgun. When I see her next I'm going to point out to her there is a good chance that if someone intends to steal her pickup they'll probably already have their handgun out.

 

[Wij]

No, no, no. The teacher will have his weapon pointed at the students at all times, and the students will do the same. Country-wide Mexican stand-off; it’s the only sane choice.

Next up, Trump suggests fire trucks to be fitted with flamethrowers.

 

[Job]

As Scouse pointed out, all this shock and horror, but considering
amount of kids
amount of guns
It's stupidly safe in American schools if your worried about getting shot.

 

[Scouse]

I was taking the piss.

 

[caLLous]

@Job isn't.

 

[Job]

Youre always banging on about how unlikely anyone is to be killed in a terrorist attack.
Well getting shot at school by a nutter on a rampage is the same level of microscopic chance.

 

[Scouse]

Youre always banging on about how unlikely anyone is to be killed in a terrorist attack.
Well getting shot at school by a nutter on a rampage is the same level of microscopic chance.

No it isn't.

Aside from the fact that terrorists don't tend to target schools, as it's counter productive, the fact that there've been about 10 school shootings on american soil, and zero terrorist attacks in the same period (or indeed, much longer periods) shows clearly that it's orders of magnitude more likely that deaths from school shootings occur.

They're also not bringing their whole national security apparatus to bear and spending hundreds of billions on fixing school shootings - but they are waging war in far flung countries to (allegedly) fix a problem that kills barely anyone.

 

[Job]

School shooters are not fulfilling the core teachings of a billion plus strong worldwide cult.

 

[Scouse]

School shooters are not fulfilling the core teachings of a billion plus strong worldwide cult.

So what? It's about actual harm.

We're not very good, as an animal, at putting money where real harm occurs.

If we have 20 deaths from barely preventable but very emotive cause (A) and 2000+ deaths from structurally preventable but not very emotive cause (B) then we pile loads of money, resources, time and effort into fixing (A) rather than (B) - even though (B) is more easily fixed and has the potential to save more lives.

This is because humans are dumb. Our brains aren't evolved to quantify and minimise risks other than immediate to us. However, we have invented systems that we can use to prioritise where we put our efforts but politicians don't use them - because voters are humans, and humans are dumb.

So we spend trillions on war and non-preventable death and fuck all on minimising road death (which we see as acceptable and unpreventable rather than abhorrent and quite easily tackled given a fraction of resources we spend tracking "terrrorists" and waging wars in foreign lands).


Just to be clear (and so I can get a traditional insult in) - you're statement proves you're the type of person who'd see us run around in futile waste rather than save lives. I.E. You're dumb.

But don't worry - you're in good company

 

[Job]

You seem as usual to be misding the point..the vast..vast majority of money spent in the fight against terrorism is spent on intelligence and preventative measures...bag searches..barriers..blast windows..bomb detection.
Would you fly on a flight to Dubai if they announced 2 months before there would be no bag searches or baggage scanning whatsoever and the pilots door would be left open...because as you say Scouse..its all wasted money.

 

[Scouse]

I understand that perfectly @Job. But you're the one stupidly (and massively wrongly) equating school shootings with terrorism.

On a tangent though - I don't think the 33 billion that the UK government says it's spent in the last two decades bombing the shit out of people has made bag searches in Dubai safer - in fact it's exactly the opposite.

 

[BloodOmen]

 

[Scouse]

Again. Can't see what you've posted there @BloodOmen.

@Deebs, twitter doesn't come through on FF properly either. Just tried it with ABP and UBlock disabled too, but nope :\

 

[BloodOmen]

Again. Can't see what you've posted there @BloodOmen.

@Deebs, twitter doesn't come through on FF properly either. Just tried it with ABP and UBlock disabled too, but nope :\

Not sure, I use unblock origin, works fine for me.

View: https://www.facebook.com/tom.adelsbach/videos/10215746426396430/

there's a direct link until you sort it out.

 

[CorNokZ]

This is just a cultural thing where you cannot seem to pound any sense into half of the population within a country.

The second amendment was written 200-something years ago and was meant as a protection of the people, as there wasn't an established police force or military/militia. Things are different these days, but the American people still believe that nothing has changed over the course of the last couple of centuries and there still is a valid reason to have a personal firearm.

Guns are meant to kill people and if you give everyone a gun there's going to be a lot of gun violence ams killings.

 

[Scouse]

The second amendment was written 200-something years ago and was meant as a protection of the people

...from their government.

It's for defence of both self and state - and (crucially) from oppression. The amendment affords the people a reasonable chance of governmental overthrow if the government is co-opted or becomes criminal (which is an occurance as common as muck).

Founding fathers knew this only too well. And on balance I still think the deaths are worth it, abhorrent as they are. The power of governments to oppress their own people is way more worrisome than the levels of death from guns in the US IMO.

Plus - you can ban them all you like. What would happen is that the good guys would hand them over and the bad guys wouldn't.

 

[Wij]

Governments have tanks and precision bombs at their disposal. Good luck with that.

 

[Scouse]

Governments have tanks and precision bombs at their disposal. Good luck with that.

Agreed. But if it was a clear and popular mass uprising because of oppressive government action you're still asking those soldiers to kill their own friends and family. How many would slaughter their own and how many would refuse?

Not saying an uprising would be succesful - but it'd have a chance. No weapons = no chance.

I'm all for another check and balance to keep an oppresive government on the rails - but I can't think of one. At the moment the only model we've got is the American one.

Unless you've got a better idea?

 

[DaGaffer]

...from their government.

It's for defence of both self and state - and (crucially) from oppression. The amendment affords the people a reasonable chance of governmental overthrow if the government is co-opted or becomes criminal (which is an occurance as common as muck).

Founding fathers knew this only too well. And on balance I still think the deaths are worth it, abhorrent as they are. The power of governments to oppress their own people is way more worrisome than the levels of death from guns in the US IMO.

Plus - you can ban them all you like. What would happen is that the good guys would hand them over and the bad guys wouldn't.

The explicit wording of the second amendment says fuck all about people protecting themselves from their government. Its routinely interpreted that way because of other writings of The Framers at the time (the claim is its an extension of the English Bill of Rights, which in turn was actually written to protect the people from Catholic monarchs, but hey-ho, relevance), but whatevers. All the AR-15s and bumpstocks in the world aren't going to protect you from a Hellfire missile up the arse if the US government decided it. The argument about protecting against the state is fatuous and has been since at least 1945.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Frankly, the whole thing only works in modern America if you define "A well-regulated Militia" as "any twat with a gun".

 

[Gwadien]

I'm more concerned that Trump loses the next election, calls bullshit on the election and all the inbreds with guns go north and kill all the peeps without guns.

Fuck 'fighting the government'.

 

[Scouse]

Meh @DaGaffer. The tyrrany argument, for all it's foibles, stacks up for me.

I'd addressed your point about hellfires and the like above and that still stands. As does my point about wanting an alternative but nobody being able to provide one...

 

[Wij]

Meh @DaGaffer. The tyrrany argument, for all it's foibles, stacks up for me.

I'd addressed your point about hellfires and the like above and that still stands. As does my point about wanting an alternative but nobody being able to provide one...

Peaceful protest and civil disobedience on a massive scale.

 

[DaGaffer]

Agreed. But if it was a clear and popular mass uprising because of oppressive government action you're still asking those soldiers to kill their own friends and family. How many would slaughter their own and how many would refuse?

Not saying an uprising would be succesful - but it'd have a chance. No weapons = no chance.

I'm all for another check and balance to keep an oppresive government on the rails - but I can't think of one. At the moment the only model we've got is the American one.

Unless you've got a better idea?

In the Civil War (an insurrection against the elected government) soldiers killed their own on a scale never seen in American history before or since, so, yeah, I think they'd be down with it. Frankly a military coup is far more likely, and more likely to be successful, than any civilian "protection of liberty".

 

[Job]

Interestingly for firearms deaths in one year for students including travelling to school and multiple victim is 65% , the rest is stabbing and beating to death.
Multiple victims by crazies is a small percentage of the 65%.
So really they need to stop people killing each other fullstop...banning assault rifles is at best going to save dozens of lives out of a handgun/knife/fist carnage being dished out on students.

 

[Lakih]

I'm more concerned that Trump loses the next election, calls bullshit on the election and all the inbreds with guns go north and kill all the peeps without guns.

Fuck 'fighting the government'.

There's no north vs south in the distribution of firearms in America. It seems to be more guns in the south but if you look at the numbers, most of the light purple (20% range) are in the high 20s and the darker purple (30%) are in the low 30s

 

[Gwadien]

There's no north vs south in the distribution of firearms in America. It seems to be more guns in the south but if you look at the numbers, most of the light purple (20% range) are in the high 20s and the darker purple (30%) are in the low 30s

Well, the North-south divide is more California + New York vs the rest

 

[DaGaffer]

Interestingly for firearms deaths in one year for students including travelling to school and multiple victim is 65% , the rest is stabbing and beating to death.
Multiple victims by crazies is a small percentage of the 65%.
So really they need to stop people killing each other fullstop...banning assault rifles is at best going to save dozens of lives out of a handgun/knife/fist carnage being dished out on students.

Correct. Handguns are by far the biggest problem.

 

[Wij]

Correct. Handguns are by far the biggest problem.

Ain't gonna happen overnight though. Assault rifles, background checks, licenses would get things in the right direction.