How the Media LIES by omission.

[Diogenes]

Another example.


Gunman killed at Sullivan Central

Cowan trained a .380-caliber semi-automatic pistol at Riden’s face, said Sullivan County Sheriff Wayne Anderson. Carolyn Gudger, the school resource officer, drew her gun, then shielded the principal’s body with her own.

Cowan fell to the ground, his shoes just feet from door to the library full of teenagers. The pistol in his hand had seven bullets in the magazine and another in the chamber. He had a second handgun in his back pocket, loaded with five rounds.

And what does the Lying Media A$$holes want to talk about? Not this. It doesn't fit their Propaganda goals.


http://www.saysuncle.com/2013/01/08/the ... nt-happen/



http://www.tricities.com/news/article_3 ... 91713.html

[kcdodd]

Well, it was 2.5 years ago. But yes, point.

[Diogenes]

Well, it was 2.5 years ago. But yes, point.

I believe I posted three other more recent examples in another thread. The Shooting in the Aurora Church, the Mall Shooting in Oregon, and the Theater shooting in Texas.


All three are examples of where a likely mass shooting was prevented because someone with a gun confronted or shot the presumptive mass shooter and caused them to change their intentions.


The Media doesn't want to give these stories wide coverage because they don't fit into the belief system of most people who work in media.


There are other examples. Every month an NRA publication called "American Rifleman" details examples of people using a gun to protect themselves.

[ScottL]

Yep armed officers at schools work, just ask Columbine. For every instance of it "working" there's an instance of it not working. While I do understand the ownership of a gun, many types of guns have no practical use in civilian hands, and that is definitely where I disagree with gun rights advocates. in many cases I'd equate the ownership of certain guns as me owning a nuke, because you never know when someone will invade and I'll need to push that button to devastate their country first.

[ladajo]

That is why certain "guns" require "certain" permits, permissions and storage requirements, like a Class III Curious Arms License. All regulated by the Federal and State Governments, already.

Seriously, do you really know what you mean when you try to say "certain guns"?

What do you mean?

[ladajo]

Yep armed officers at schools work, just ask Columbine

This was a stupid thing to say. See above posts relating to Columbine.

We did ask "Columbine" and an armed officer DID make a difference.
Out of 2,000 targets, only 13 were killed. I am freely willing to say that if the ONE armed officer had not been there, and had not engaged with one of the TWO shooters, that many more than 13 would have been killed.
His actions most certainly shaped the outcome.

[williatw]

There are other examples. Every month an NRA publication called "American Rifleman" details examples of people using a gun to protect themselves.

Or just check their website, under "armed citizen".

http://www.nraila.org/gun-laws/armed-citizen.aspx

[Diogenes]

Yep armed officers at schools work, just ask Columbine. For every instance of it "working" there's an instance of it not working.

I hear Banks hire guys with guns to drive around in armored cars carrying money. This never works. Every time a guy shows up with a team of robbers, the truck gets robbed. I don't know why they even bother. It is obviously a non workable system. They should just hire a courier to carry all the money from place to place.

Same thing with cops. People are still getting shot, people are still getting robbed. Having no cops at all would work just as well as having cops. Right?

While I do understand the ownership of a gun, many types of guns have no practical use in civilian hands, and that is definitely where I disagree with gun rights advocates. in many cases I'd equate the ownership of certain guns as me owning a nuke, because you never know when someone will invade and I'll need to push that button to devastate their country first.

As the practical use for which second amendment rights were created was to fight back against a tyrannical central government, your position makes no sense whatsoever. During the time of the Founding, individuals owned their own cannons and gun boats. They were equal in firepower to the best military equipment of the time.

It is well bandied about the Conservative Blogs that the DHS (Department of Homeland Security) has purchased a billion rounds of ammo. Nobody can fathom any rational reason why they would do such a thing except for one.


Every sort of firearm which can be purchased is flying off the shelves in every Gun store in America, because a lot of people feel as though our Central government is about to wage war upon the productive memebers of societyso that they can appease the ne'er do wells and Limousine Liberal parasites of our society.

The people have responded to these threats by not merely buying up the firearms, magazines, and ammunition that might be affected by these proposed bans as they did in 1993/94 before the Clinton-era ban was pushed through, but by purchasing nearly every firearm of military utility of the past 100+ years. Ruger 10/22s and other common .22LR rifles have doubled in price when they can be found at all. Inexpensive Mosin-Nagants, originally designed in 1891 and typically found by the dozen in your average neighborhood gun shops, are nowhere to be found, and their ammunition is gone as well. U.S. citizens are preparing for war against their government by the millions. Americans aren’t “going Galt” in response to the push by would-be elites to surging statism. We’re on the cusp of going Häyhä.

Stuff is looking very ugly lately.

[ScottL]

Yep armed officers at schools work, just ask Columbine

This was a stupid thing to say. See above posts relating to Columbine.

We did ask "Columbine" and an armed officer DID make a difference.
Out of 2,000 targets, only 13 were killed. I am freely willing to say that if the ONE armed officer had not been there, and had not engaged with one of the TWO shooters, that many more than 13 would have been killed.
His actions most certainly shaped the outcome.

I disagree and the difference perceived is subjective at best.

[ScottL]

That is why certain "guns" require "certain" permits, permissions and storage requirements, like a Class III Curious Arms License. All regulated by the Federal and State Governments, already.

Seriously, do you really know what you mean when you try to say "certain guns"?

What do you mean?

If it's not breach-loading, it's likely on my personal list of weapons that should be heavely regulated, although I don't think regulation is a full answer. Education is and always will be the answer.

[Diogenes]

There are other examples. Every month an NRA publication called "American Rifleman" details examples of people using a gun to protect themselves.

Or just check their website, under "armed citizen".

http://www.nraila.org/gun-laws/armed-citizen.aspx

The NRA. America's BEST civil rights organization. Helping to fight oppression since it was founded by Union veterans Col. William C. Church and Gen. George Wingate.

[Diogenes]

That is why certain "guns" require "certain" permits, permissions and storage requirements, like a Class III Curious Arms License. All regulated by the Federal and State Governments, already.

Seriously, do you really know what you mean when you try to say "certain guns"?

What do you mean?

If it's not breach-loading, it's likely on my personal list of weapons that should be heavely regulated, although I don't think regulation is a full answer. Education is and always will be the answer.

I think Journalists should only get first amendment protection when they use ink and paper, same as in 1787. The founders could never have envisioned the political brainwashing made possible by the misuse of modern Assault Television.


Any media which allows for major fact distorting such as movies and television needs to be heavily regulated by the government to prevent misuse. Only the government should have Media weapons. They should not be allowed in private hands.

[ScottL]

I broke the quotes out abit so my counter-arguments would be more organized.

I hear Banks hire guys with guns to drive around in armored cars carrying money. This never works. Every time a guy shows up with a team of robbers, the truck gets robbed. I don't know why they even bother. It is obviously a non workable system. They should just hire a courier to carry all the money from place to place.

Same thing with cops. People are still getting shot, people are still getting robbed. Having no cops at all would work just as well as having cops. Right?

My response to the first paragraph would be:
http://www.google.com/#hl=en&tbo=d&outp ... 01&bih=563 and my obnoxious response would be "yeah because armored vehicles NEVER get robbed"

As for the second part, it's a statistical balance, armed police has a correlation to less violent crimes. This is a weak argument from you at best, but you did it as a form of baiting.

As the practical use for which second amendment rights were created was to fight back against a tyrannical central government, your position makes no sense whatsoever. During the time of the Founding, individuals owned their own cannons and gun boats. They were equal in firepower to the best military equipment of the time.

Times changes and a hunting rifle and pretty much any breach-loading guns can still kill. The fact that you're more efficient in the numbers that you can kill worries me more.

It is well bandied about the Conservative Blogs that the DHS (Department of Homeland Security) has purchased a billion rounds of ammo. Nobody can fathom any rational reason why they would do such a thing except for one.

Lobbyists and Politicians trying to keep their constituents employed is more likely the case.

[Diogenes]

I broke the quotes out abit so my counter-arguments would be more organized.

I hear Banks hire guys with guns to drive around in armored cars carrying money. This never works. Every time a guy shows up with a team of robbers, the truck gets robbed. I don't know why they even bother. It is obviously a non workable system. They should just hire a courier to carry all the money from place to place.

Same thing with cops. People are still getting shot, people are still getting robbed. Having no cops at all would work just as well as having cops. Right?

My response to the first paragraph would be:
http://www.google.com/#hl=en&tbo=d&outp ... 01&bih=563 and my obnoxious response would be "yeah because armored vehicles NEVER get robbed"

You still aren't getting the irony of what I just did to you. You are now making my argument for me!


Armed guards and armored cars will NOT STOP a dedicated or clever group of people intent on robbing them. They WILL stop most robbers though.

The guard at Columbia might have stopped a single gunman. (as have others.)It is too much to ask that he could stop TWO gunmen. That is sort of a black swan event, and one for which it is prohibitively expensive to prepare.

However, allowing teachers to get concealed carry licenses and carry their guns to school, MIGHT introduce enough uncertainty among potential assailants to prevent them from entertaining the idea in the first place. (Deterrence, if you will.) In the event that people attempt to assault a school anyway, the possibility of multiple armed school personnel MIGHT prevent them from killing more people, once their presence is known.

These ideas have a greater than zero probability of working. Do you know what has a zero probability of working? Gun Control. (look at England.)

As for the second part, it's a statistical balance, armed police has a correlation to less violent crimes. This is a weak argument from you at best, but you did it as a form of baiting.

I did it to point out that a thoroughly sensible idea (Police to fight and prevent crime) is not always successful. The point was to demonstrate that a case like Columbia is not typical. Usually it's a single gunman, not a team working together. The failure of the Guard at Columbia to prevent 13 murders is not a good argument for having no guard at all.

As the practical use for which second amendment rights were created was to fight back against a tyrannical central government, your position makes no sense whatsoever. During the time of the Founding, individuals owned their own cannons and gun boats. They were equal in firepower to the best military equipment of the time.

Times changes and a hunting rifle and pretty much any breach-loading guns can still kill. The fact that you're more efficient in the numbers that you can kill worries me more.

Me too, but unfortunately that's what the tyrants plan to bring to the gun fight.

It is well bandied about the Conservative Blogs that the DHS (Department of Homeland Security) has purchased a billion rounds of ammo. Nobody can fathom any rational reason why they would do such a thing except for one.

Lobbyists and Politicians trying to keep their constituents employed is more likely the case.

I would argue that the Ammo manufactures are likely to have most of their customers on the right side of the spectrum. Hard to see them as having much support from the Obama regime. Dems\Libs are usually pretty down on arms manufactures. Not a natural constituency for them you know.

[ScottL]

I disagree with the "most robbers," but once again it's a subjective argument between us on that point. To me all I've proven is that robbers rob regardless of whether their target is armed or not. This part however; had me in tears laughing:

However, allowing teachers to get concealed carry licenses and carry their guns to school, MIGHT introduce enough uncertainty among potential assailants to prevent them from entertaining the idea in the first place. (Deterrence, if you will.) In the event that people attempt to assault a school anyway, the possibility of multiple armed school personnel MIGHT prevent them from killing more people, once their presence is known.

These ideas have a greater than zero probability of working. Do you know what has a zero probability of working? Gun Control. (look at England.)

The same teachers with whom many conservatives believe are over-paid, under-worked, and unjustily unionized? Now you want to trust them with guns? You want to trust them with guns....around your children? The same unionized workers who contribute willfully to liberally minded politicians.

I still think general education on various matters whether it be guns, equality(racial,gender), contraception (sexual education) would go pretty darn far to further lower the rates of what I view as undesirable outcomes. The downside to this idea of education is that it comes at a cost, one which many around here have argued against. I'm in opposition, I believe education is a basic right, not a priviledge.