Another start to the school year, another shooting; nothing will change

#453
#453
@lawgator1

Why do you refuse to discuss or answer?

hog88 said:
The question was should the parents be held criminally responsible if they knew their kid made threats of mass murder and did nothing. Regardless of what they used to commit the crime,
Click to expand...
 
#454
#454
luthervol said:
If a kid goes into a school with the intent to harm as many as possible, I'd prefer he be armed with a butter knife rather than a machine gun and grenades.
Click to expand...
While yes, I agree with this sentiment if we get the chance to choose the weapon of choice for the killer in advance, but I am unaware of any attacks that used butter knives, machine guns and/or grenades in the US.

And what would be the relevance the first time some psycho figures out how to fatally poison 75 students and teachers? "Thank God he didn't kill a half dozen with a gun!?"

The problem is not the tool. It is the monster deciding that is a valid course of action.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MR_VOL, 82_VOL_83, MemphisVol77 and 6 others
#455
#455
luthervol said:
If a kid goes into a school with the intent to harm as many as possible, I'd prefer he be armed with a butter knife rather than a machine gun and grenades.
Click to expand...
If the schools get so many tips toward violence that the cry wolf principle is in play, then harden the target with limited points of entry, screening, and armed good guys.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 82_VOL_83, Vol since 77, NurseGoodVol and 3 others
#456
#456
GroverCleveland said:
While yes, I agree with this sentiment if we get the chance to choose the weapon of choice for the killer in advance, but I am unaware of any attacks that used butter knives, machine guns and/or grenades in the US.

And what would be the relevance the first time some psycho figures out how to fatally poison 75 students and teachers? "Thank God he didn't kill a half dozen with a gun!?"

The problem is not the tool. It is the monster deciding that is a valid course of action.
Click to expand...
Of course it's the monster....no one has ever disagreed with that.

But the tool is completely relevant.
 
#457
#457
CobbVol said:
If the schools get so many tips toward violence that the cry wolf principle is in play, then harden the target with limited points of entry, screening, and armed good guys.
Click to expand...
Every school around here has done that with the exception of screening.
 
#459
#459
  • Like
Reactions: MR_VOL, Pennheel, NurseGoodVol and 2 others
#460
#460
luthervol said:
Of course it's the monster....no one has ever disagreed with that.

But the tool is completely relevant.
Click to expand...
How so is the tool relevant? Help me understand how someone killed by a car is better off than someone shot dead? Or how being bludgeoned to death is preferable?

In Freakonomics, it was pointed out how a child is far more likely to drown in the neighbor's backyard pool than by gunshot wound from the neighbor's gun. Is drowning less dead than being shot? Or should we be demanding that backyard pools all be filled in?

We agree on the monsters. Just admit that guns elicit an emotional response and logic be damned. You're bought in on taking guns you do not like away from people you do not know.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MR_VOL, MemphisVol77, whodeycin85 and 3 others
#461
#461
luthervol said:
Of course it's the monster....no one has ever disagreed with that.

But the tool is completely relevant.
Click to expand...

So, when you voted for Obama, Biden and Clinton... .your thought was if an American kid needed to be killed you believe a Hellfire missile was the best tool?

The tool isn't relevant. You don't even care about the kids, you care because someone told you what to think.... guns bad, orange man bad.

Give me a big dump truck any day of the week, mostly irrelevant though.

"Shoot'em, stab'em, drown'em, burn'em.... drop a big rock on their head" - Major Warren (The Hateful 8)

09e59d4d-7053-4371-8101-dc76c36ac48a_text.gif
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: MR_VOL and InVOLuntary
#462
#462
GroverCleveland said:
How so is the tool relevant? Help me understand how someone killed by a car is better off than someone shot dead? Or how being bludgeoned to death is preferable?

In Freakonomics, it was pointed out how a child is far more likely to drown in the neighbor's backyard pool than by gunshot wound from the neighbor's gun. Is drowning less dead than being shot? Or should we be demanding that backyard pools all be filled in?

We agree on the monsters. Just admit that guns elicit an emotional response and logic be damned. You're bought in on taking guns you do not like away from people you do not know.
Click to expand...
I think a child has less chance of drowning in a kiddie pool, than the deep end of a pool, or caught in a rip tide in the ocean.

Here is the mental exercise that may help you understand why it is relevant.
Your loved one is at the food court in the mall. A monster shows up intent on maximum death, destruction, and carnage.
Would you prefer he be armed with a butter knife, hand gun, machine gun, or 50 lbs of TNT?
 
#463
#463
  • Like
Reactions: MR_VOL, luthervol, theFallGuy and 2 others
#465
#465
CobbVol said:
If the schools get so many tips toward violence that the cry wolf principle is in play, then harden the target with limited points of entry, screening, and armed good guys.
Click to expand...

At some point what is the purpose... all the nuts kind of like Luther don't want statutory laws enforced once someone is killed or hurt anyway?

Why are they worried about all this.... they don't want people prosecuted, jailed or executed.

They're crying now not because they care about kids that got killed but its about guns.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MR_VOL
#466
#466
luthervol said:
I think a child has less chance of drowning in a kiddie pool, than the deep end of a pool, or caught in a rip tide in the ocean.

Here is the mental exercise that may help you understand why it is relevant.
Your loved one is at the food court in the mall. A monster shows up intent on maximum death, destruction, and carnage.
Would you prefer he be armed with a butter knife, hand gun, machine gun, or 50 lbs of TNT?
Click to expand...

And statistics prove you wrong again.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 82_VOL_83, YankeeVol, BisonVol and 2 others
#468
#468
luthervol said:
I think a child has less chance drowning in a kiddie pool, than the deep end of a pool, or caught in a rip tide in the ocean.

Here is the mental exercise that may help you understand why it is relevant.
Your loved one is at the food court in the mall. A monster shows up intent on maximum death, destruction, and carnage.
Would you prefer he be armed with a butter knife, hand gun, machine gun, or 50 lbs of TNT?
Click to expand...
That first sentence is nothing more than a strawman.

The second part also presents a logical fallacy, Luther, by assuming I get to choose the potential danger. I don't and my loved one is just as dead or hurt regardless of what was brought to the food court. It is why I carry a concealed weapon as a potential solution whatever unknown danger presents itself and I may recognize.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MR_VOL, whodeycin85 and LSU-SIU
#470
#470
luthervol said:
I think a child has less chance of drowning in a kiddie pool, than the deep end of a pool, or caught in a rip tide in the ocean.

Here is the mental exercise that may help you understand why it is relevant.
Your loved one is at the food court in the mall. A monster shows up intent on maximum death, destruction, and carnage.
Would you prefer he be armed with a butter knife, hand gun, machine gun, or 50 lbs of TNT?
Click to expand...

You voted for monsters Luther, you don't care.

As far logic or realistic.... I would get the biggest vehicle I could get, I would probably prefer a dump truck.

Cleveland is correct you are setting up strange delusional strawman.
 
  • Like
Reactions: GroverCleveland
#473
#473
hog88 said:
It's interesting that none of our gun-grabbing members want to discuss that.
Click to expand...
It is, but as I pointed out to Luth, their opposition to guns is based on the emotional reaction to guns.

That Freakonomics chapter I referenced earlier addresses this by posing that people's demand for gun control over filling in pools is because a gunshot wound is a more visceral death than drowning in spite of the clear data over the relevant danger posed by each. Luther mentions relevance, but ignores that operative part of it: what is the likelihood of the various weapon choices.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MR_VOL, MemphisVol77, LSU-SIU and 1 other person
#474
#474
The same people that don't want to enforce criminal statutes against criminals, are just fine with people committing murder as long as its not with a gun.

Luther, you have to lock people up.... the gun has nothing to do with crap. Trying to get rid of guns does no good in any way, if it were... Mexico would be safe. Chicago would be safe.

None of these people will comment after all the shootings in Chicago... why? Its the crap holes they have created.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MR_VOL and 82_VOL_83
#475
#475
GroverCleveland said:
It is, but as I pointed out to Luth, their opposition to guns is based on the emotional reaction to guns.

That Freakonomics chapter I referenced earlier addresses this by posing that people's demand for gun control over filling in pools is because a gunshot wound is a more visceral death than drowning in spite of the clear data over the relevant danger posed by each.
Click to expand...

For some, yes it is emotional but for others like LG and Luther it is 100% political.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MR_VOL, Vol8188, SpaceCoastVol and 4 others
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top