Aguila Blanca
Staff
Absolutely. I agree 100 percent, and I wasn't trying to refute the statement, only to amplify on it a bit.JohnKSa said:
Texas School Shooting
- Thread starter dajowi
- Start date
- Status
No it didn't , I stated the reason I believe the media wont cover this shooting is because it "appeared" to have all the things the pro gun crowed says will work in stopping these type of shootings . Please explain where I was false in my post
There was no original claim other then why I thought the media would not cover this like they did the Florida shooting . I gave multiple reasons with one being what a private organization uses as a talking point which goes directly to me starting the whole thing out with
I can't help it if some read more into it then was actually written . I seem to get that a lot here at TFL . People seeing things never written then calling me out as if I said or meant something I never did .
I quoted your claim from your post. For that matter, so have you--at least three times now.
In addition, you have also stated that you "can show the same thing backing my points"--that you can support the claim.
The highlighted claim is false. If there were really any doubt, the Indiana school shooting where an unarmed good guy stopped a school shooting by tackling the shooter should have eliminated it.Metal god said:
If that were what was happening, it would, indeed be a problem.
Obviously that is not what happened. You not only wrote it, when you were called on it you then stated you could support the points you made--including the false claim. Then, on top of that, you have, in each of your last three posts quoted your original post, thus reiterating the claim.
I get that wasn't the main point of your post, but the idea that it's acceptable to make incorrect claims as long as the main point is correct doesn't fly.
Giving a treatise which correctly explains orbital mechanics and the structure of the solar system but that includes the claim that the moon is made of green cheese is still problematic even if the main point and all of the rest of the discussion is still correct.
It remains problematic even if the person asserts that their main point has nothing to do with the composition of the moon and that they weren't the originator or primary promulgator of the green cheese moon theory.
Repeating/reasserting/defending obviously false claims hurts our cause. We are supposed to be the side of this issue that bases arguments on facts while the other side is the one that appeals to emotions, spins facts and relies on sound bites and catchy but incorrect slogans.
Aguila Blanca
Staff
Wasn't there also an incident fairly recently in which the weapon was an AR-15, and some good guy wrestled the gun away from the shooter? Why, yes, there was -- the Waffle House shooting:JohnKSa said:
https://www.tennessean.com/story/ne...ouse-shooting-hero-stopped-shooter/540061002/
And, of course, there was the incident on the train in Europe, in which three unarmed Americans wrestled an AK-47 away from a terrorist. Some guy named Eastwood made a movie about that one.
Nonetheless, the odds favor good guys being armed. The Waffle House good guy was wounded, albeit not seriously. At least one of the Americans on the train sustained some fairly serious injuries, and the teacher in Indiana was shot three times.
There are no absolutes (including this statement).
I didn’t claim anything , I wrote what others claim . There’s a difference. I wrote the media will not report on the story based on what the gun community claims as a whole . It “appears” now one can not write about something with out fully indorcing it . That’s why I brought up the point about defending something i never said . There again is a difference between writing about something and saying it as if you believe in it lock stock and barrel . You continue to take the original statement out of context and asking me to defend your out of context interpretation.
Let me ask you this . Was it wrong to point out what a lot in the gun community say and is a talking point for them ? I later found my self defending that statement which i should not have but that does not change the meaning and original point . How many times and ways do I have to walk back and clarify what I meant before you believe me and except it ?
Let me ask you this . Was it wrong to point out what a lot in the gun community say and is a talking point for them ? I later found my self defending that statement which i should not have but that does not change the meaning and original point . How many times and ways do I have to walk back and clarify what I meant before you believe me and except it ?
I just got to thinking about something . It appears most if not all the unarmed hero's you guys are using as proof the NRA's slogan is wrong were not unarmed by choice . They all likely confronted a gunman/active shooter unarmed because they were forced to . Meaning they were in countries that did not allow them to carry a gun , in a gun free zones or not old enough to carry a gun . It seems to be a bit of a dishonest argument really to claim you don't need a gun to stop a guy with a gun when your examples have the laws only allowing them to confront a gunman unarmed . Well of course you'll see unarmed people disarming gunman when that's there only choice .
Double Naught Spy
New member
The rebel in you wants to discard data it doesn't like???? He was on scene. He was the SRO at the school. He was a good guy. He was a good guy with a gun who didn't act, but he was a good guy. He broke no laws. The goober cop even had an award for being such a good SRO. He converged on the building where the shooting was and was there inside of 2(?) minutes (which was fast by Santa Fe standards) and listened to the shooting inside the building for 4 minutes. He then stood outside of the building and reported the shots ongoing and issued directions to responding officers. Don't claim he wasn't on scene.
seeker_two
New member
A good guy with a gun is more likely to successfully stop a bad guy with a gun than a good guy with empty hands and harsh language is....
....and five good guys with guns will be even more likely to succeed.
Sent from my SM-G892A using Tapatalk
....and five good guys with guns will be even more likely to succeed.
Sent from my SM-G892A using Tapatalk
Aguila Blanca
Staff
Facts are facts. It doesn't matter whether they were unarmed due to personal choice or due to external factors that didn't allow them to be armed. The point is, they WERE unarmed, and they DID succeed in stopping a shooter.Metal God said:
Aguila Blanca
Staff
It depends on how you define "on the scene." The "scene" of the shooting was the second floor (I believe) of the freshman building of a large, multi-building campus. He was far enough away that he "responded" by riding toward the building where the shooting occurred on a golf cart. It's convenient (for some arguments) to say that he was "on the scene," but IMHO he wasn't. He was "in the vicinity." The semantic problem is that the campus involved all functions under one name and is referred to as a "school" -- singular. Let's shift gears to the Virginia Tech shooting. Virginia Tech is "a" university. It has a campus police force. The shooter mounted his main attack in Norris Hall. There were campus cops in various places around the campus, but none were in Norris Hall. Does anyone claim that any of the campus cops at VT were "on the scene" just because they were on the same campus (but not in the same building)?DNS said:
Fire up Google Maps and look at Marjorie Stoneham Douglas High School. Then picture a street in Anytown, USA. Imagine, for example, a standard McDonald's restaurant with an AutoZone parts house next door. Let's say there's an armed, off-duty police officer in the AutoZone, buying a headlight for his wife's mini-van, when a shooting breaks out at the McDonald's next door. Based on the physical size of the two buildings and sites, the officer would be much closer to the scene of the shooting than Officer Friendly was at Marjorie Stoneham Douglas HS but, because in my example the officer is on a separate property, I don't think anyone would claim that he was "on the scene." If he chose to respond (which one hopes that he would), it would probably be reported that he was "nearby" or "in the vicinity" or "next door." He was not "on the scene."
And I think we should recognize that about the Parkland shooting. The cowardly SRO was not "on the scene" of the shooting. He was "nearby," and he responded in a motorized vehicle from another location on the campus.
I think it matters a lot . If they were not gun free zones I believe it to be more likely someone with a gun would intervene before an unarmed person does . You can't just dismiss the fact that in most of those unarmed take downs nobody in the area was allowed to have a firearm . At minimum there should be an asterisks next to those unarmed stats . I don't see it as any different then banning the AR-15 then later claim not many people own them as a reason you don't see them as a common use weapon . The laws them selves allow the statistics to be skewed .
For the record and the third or forth time now in this thread . I agree a firearm is not needed to stop a person with a firearm .
I'd also like to point out I tried to stop this derailment but alas I couldn't by not diving to deep into my response as well as admitting it's not the only thing .
Last edited:
Double Naught Spy
New member
He arrived at the building while the shooting was occurring and was present for several minutes while the shooting occurred, and was reporting what was going on at the location. He was on scene.
Just like when officers arrive at a location of a robbery that happened inside of a business, they report that they are on scene without being inside of the building. Gimme a break.
Glenn E. Meyer
New member
Not really L and CR
Thus moved
Thus moved
we can argue endlessly about the exceptions to a given slogan. That's not the point. If it had been said "the best way to..." we could be arguing over what is, and isn't the "best" way...
And do remember that a "good guy with a gun" includes all the armed POLICE too, not just armed citizens. We call the police, and expect them to stop crime BECAUSE they have guns, AND the lawful authority to use them.
If you want a "bulletproof" slogan, you could say
"the only way to absolutely guarantee stopping a bad guy with a gun is for someone to shoot them dead, dead, DEAD!!!"
It's totally true, but not very PC and a rather poor sound bite.
and tis not the mission of the Police to do that, either. Their job is to apprehend. People do get shot dead, but its not the intended function, its an "unfortunate result".
And do remember that a "good guy with a gun" includes all the armed POLICE too, not just armed citizens. We call the police, and expect them to stop crime BECAUSE they have guns, AND the lawful authority to use them.
If you want a "bulletproof" slogan, you could say
"the only way to absolutely guarantee stopping a bad guy with a gun is for someone to shoot them dead, dead, DEAD!!!"
It's totally true, but not very PC and a rather poor sound bite.
and tis not the mission of the Police to do that, either. Their job is to apprehend. People do get shot dead, but its not the intended function, its an "unfortunate result".
To be completely fair, it is not always in every instance believed to be so "unfortunate" by all.
In the case of mass shooters, I don't know why but I do prefer them to captured alive so someone, somewhere, can pick their brain to find out why. But then there is the fact that they suck up tax payer dollars in prison. I just sometimes lament that the meaning of the 8th amendment has morphed into what it is today when dealing with them. "Cruel and Unusual" has almost come to mean not giving murderers cable TV in prison, when in fact I am a "punishment should fit the crime" type of guy. I'm also not entirely sure that "punishment should fit the crime" is outside of the original intent of the 8th amendment. In the crime of mass shooting, it's fair to assess a great deal of pain was inflicted during the crime. The punishment should reflect said pain.
Glenn E. Meyer
New member
Giving up Constitutional protections even for the heinous criminals is a slippery slope that we don't want to go down. Think of it as the slippery slope on gun banning. Just take out the ARs. Not so bad, then ...
Either the BOR means what it says, or it doesn't.
Either the BOR means what it says, or it doesn't.
Exactly. the issue is not a binary or trying to develop a narrative with something as sparse as mass school shootings. Most of what you see asserted as constant in mass school shootings are not constants at all. The highest injury and lethality mass shooting at a US school was Va-Tech with pistol. A pistol can easily be a more effective overall weapon since one can move though a campus without being known as the shooter. The type of weapon is irrelevant. Larger magazine capacity is more important for a DEFENDER since they are not going to plan and pack 40 10-round mags, whereas a perp can simply carry more mags.
So it is likely an the data show that armed defenders prevent, stop or reduce some of these attacks. all, most or how much is not even relevant.
the other constant in these shootings is the copycat element from wall to wall coverage making the shooter famous, which is surely the primary goal. If you want to mess with the bill of rights you could reduce these better with limits on the first amendment just as new limits on the fourth or fifth would reduce general violent crime.
Va-Tech with pistol is NOT an irrelevant outlier, it is a proof of concept. it means there is no rational reason whatsoever to argue or assume either lower lethality or lower occurrence if all AR-15 disappeared tomorrow.
100% agree. As we assert DGU numbers and scenarios we are in the right to do so, but your point is even more important. Do we or do we not want OJ to be tried over and over like Oscar Pistorius -- even knowing OJ was guilty. I want strict double jeopardy protection. 3/4 of the developed democracies either have no double jeopardy protections or exceptions not allowed in the US.
I mean look at this, German kids lecturing the US
https://wamu.org/story/18/03/14/students-d-c-s-german-school-bring-unique-perspective-gun-debate/
The ACLU would call for a violent revolution if the US adopted German's civil liverties regime. You don't get jury trials, warrants are twice as easy, there is national stop and frisk and first amendment rights are also lower.
I am not saying that we repeal or ignore the 8th amendment, nor am I saying that we stick hot pokers up the kid's behind. What I am saying is that the meaning of cruel and unusual, to some, has changed drastically with time. It was 1878 before case law forbad public dissection, or burning alive. I'm not proposing anything of that nature. Just that some crimes deserve that the offender really experience no comfort for the remainder of their life. Hard labor has not been ruled cruel and unusual. Sounds like 6 days a week, 12 hours a day, breaking rocks for the remainder of ones life (with adequate food) could sufficiently ensure a level of discomfort... which is the point of punishment. At that point we're not talking about attempting reform. Reform is great and all, but not for a mass murderer.
And I still don't cry if the shooter is killed, but would rather they be caught alive (assuming there can be adequate punishment).
Andy Blozinski
New member
The only situation I'd want the murderer caught alive is if there was a problem figuring out motivation. We still have no clue why the murderer acted in Las Vegas. That's just annoyingly frustrating. For me, knowing why gives some closure.
We differ a bit on that point. I don't give a rodent's hindquarters WHY a killer acts. Sure, its mildly interesting as an intellectual exercise, but in reality, it doesn't matter, or change anything.
I want them taken alive, so that they can suffer PUNISHMENT for their crimes. And yes, I do support the death penalty. I don't want killers to "score a win" by killing themselves, or being killed by police (though I do admit it solves that particular problem). I want the killers caught, and to live the rest of their lives, (long or short) KNOWING they got caught, and are being punished for what they did.
I don't care if they only live a week after conviction, before being hanged, I want them to spend that week watching their gallows being built from their cell window. If they spend decades at hard labor, I'm ok with that, too. The point is that they need to KNOW they are being punished for their crimes.
I'm also in the camp that considers mental illness an explanation, not an excuse.
- Status