WWTBAM Bored

Today I had my first sighting of the wacko lunatics of Open Carry Texas as they demonstrated at a major intersection in the Dallas suburbs. They had their signs and had their guns strapped on and everything.

I can think of only two reasons to openly carry a gun in public. One is to compensate for your tiny penis, and the other is in case you have to shoot it out with the bad guys, and in the unlikely event that happens there is very little chance it will go the way you imagine it will, Bubba. Even the police, who are highly trained, sometimes make mistakes, so what chance does your ignorant ass have?

There have now been 74 school shootings since Newtown and still no new laws. What we need is more common sense in our laws and not more idiots waving guns.

I so miss the "rec" button.

elwoodblues wrote:There have now been 74 school shootings since Newtown and still no new laws. What we need is more common sense in our laws and not more idiots waving guns.

Elwood, I'm no fan of guns or the Wild West mentality idiots who believe the only way to control crime is to have an armed populace.... but gun control is not going to stop or really even curb school/workplace shootings (violence is actually the key word here).

A lot of the people I associate with on Wordpress have mental health issues (Depression, bipolar, etc.) Yeah, so do a lot of people here most would say, only over there, they embrace and accept these conditions and use their forums to try and educate others about the topic, which most people like to sweep under the rug. One of the things that is touted in my circle a lot, and a viewpoint I have come around to accept, is the fact that the number one change that would stop a lot of these acts of violence is greater access to competent and affordable mental health care, because often these perpetrators are people who have cried out for help in the past, but were unable to find or obtain treatment for the mental issues that eventually caused them to snap.

But as long as mental health problems continue to be treated as a stigma in this country, and mental health care continues to be hard to obtain for the many who need it, we will continue to see people go off their rocker and do things like this.... easy access to weapons or not....

lb13

elwoodblues wrote:Today I had my first sighting of the wacko lunatics of Open Carry Texas as they demonstrated at a major intersection in the Dallas suburbs. They had their signs and had their guns strapped on and everything.

I can think of only two reasons to openly carry a gun in public. One is to compensate for your tiny penis, and the other is in case you have to shoot it out with the bad guys, and in the unlikely event that happens there is very little chance it will go the way you imagine it will, Bubba. Even the police, who are highly trained, sometimes make mistakes, so what chance does your ignorant ass have?

They guy who was shot in the Las Vegas Walmart was a "good guy with a gun." He'd be alive today if he hadn't been carrying.

littlebeast13 wrote: But as long as mental health problems continue to be treated as a stigma in this country, and mental health care continues to be hard to obtain for the many who need it, we will continue to see people go off their rocker and do things like this.... easy access to weapons or not....

lb13

That is very true. We do need more emphasis on getting help for those who need it. And I agree with those who say laws alone will not stop lawbreakers. But does that mean we should just do nothing? Make it harder to get assault rifles for one thing. Maybe outlaws will always have guns, but let's at least make it a little harder to become an outlaw.

Maybe people kill people, but people with guns are able to kill a lot more people.

elwoodblues wrote: Maybe people kill people, but people with guns are able to kill a lot more people.

Not when those they are trying to shoot are also carrying.

I'll remind you that every single school shooting so far has been in a 'gun free zone'. So the answer is not really more restrictive laws.

We need to deal with truths. We are drugging our kids because of normal, but undesirable behaviors. We coddle them until they are grown to make sure they never get their feelings hurt so that they don't develop coping mechanisms. And then we are surprised when they crack. Well, I'm not.

BackInTex wrote:

elwoodblues wrote: Maybe people kill people, but people with guns are able to kill a lot more people.

Not when those they are trying to shoot are also carrying.

I'll remind you that every single school shooting so far has been in a 'gun free zone'. So the answer is not really more restrictive laws.

We need to deal with truths. We are drugging our kids because of normal, but undesirable behaviors. We coddle them until they are grown to make sure they never get their feelings hurt so that they don't develop coping mechanisms. And then we are surprised when they crack. Well, I'm not.

Oregon school shooter's journal reveals he was devout Mormon out to kill 'sinners'.

BackInTex wrote:

elwoodblues wrote: Maybe people kill people, but people with guns are able to kill a lot more people.

Not when those they are trying to shoot are also carrying.

I'll remind you that every single school shooting so far has been in a 'gun free zone'. So the answer is not really more restrictive laws.

We need to deal with truths. We are drugging our kids because of normal, but undesirable behaviors. We coddle them until they are grown to make sure they never get their feelings hurt so that they don't develop coping mechanisms. And then we are surprised when they crack. Well, I'm not.

I think we can all agree that it is a complicated issue for sure.

elwoodblues wrote:

BackInTex wrote:

elwoodblues wrote: Maybe people kill people, but people with guns are able to kill a lot more people.

Not when those they are trying to shoot are also carrying.

I'll remind you that every single school shooting so far has been in a 'gun free zone'. So the answer is not really more restrictive laws.

We need to deal with truths. We are drugging our kids because of normal, but undesirable behaviors. We coddle them until they are grown to make sure they never get their feelings hurt so that they don't develop coping mechanisms. And then we are surprised when they crack. Well, I'm not.

I think we can all agree that it is a complicated issue for sure.

I expect any day we'll hear about someone who is openly carrying being shot by the police because they mistook him for a criminal.

Bob Juch wrote: I expect any day we'll hear about someone who is openly carrying being shot by the police because they mistook him for a criminal.

Police have been known to shoot unarmed folks as well. So sure, its only a matter of time.

BackInTex wrote:

elwoodblues wrote: Maybe people kill people, but people with guns are able to kill a lot more people.

Not when those they are trying to shoot are also carrying.

Georgia Cop Shot and Killed by Law Abiding Citizen with Gun Permit

As long as the bad guys have the advantage of striking first, it doesn't matter how well armed you are. And in this case, the killer was a law abiding citizen exercising his right to protect himself ... right up until the moment he lost his head and lashed out at the cop who tried to arrest his girlfriend.

The prospect of being in a restaurant or a workplace or a school or some other situation in which two idiots with guns are trying to shoot at each other doesn't make me feel any safer.

BackInTex wrote: I'll remind you that every single school shooting so far has been in a 'gun free zone'. So the answer is not really more restrictive laws.

And of course you can't know that because you don't know how many shootings have been avoided because the overwhelming majority of people aren't carrying weapons in schools.

It's like saying that we should repeal DUI laws because some people are going to drive when drunk no matter what the law says.

silverscreenselect wrote:

BackInTex wrote: I'll remind you that every single school shooting so far has been in a 'gun free zone'. So the answer is not really more restrictive laws.

And of course you can't know that because you don't know how many shootings have been avoided because the overwhelming majority of people aren't carrying weapons in schools.

It's like saying that we should repeal DUI laws because some people are going to drive when drunk no matter what the law says.

If I was going to start shooting random people I'd make sure it was in a "gun-free zone".

silverscreenselect wrote:

BackInTex wrote: I'll remind you that every single school shooting so far has been in a 'gun free zone'. So the answer is not really more restrictive laws.

And of course you can't know that because you don't know how many shootings have been avoided because the overwhelming majority of people aren't carrying weapons in schools.

It's like saying that we should repeal DUI laws because some people are going to drive when drunk no matter what the law says.

Your analogy is flawed. Your logic is so bizarre I can't even begin to correct it. DUI laws make it illegal to improperly use something not to purchase own or properly operate something. I would never suggest repealling DUI laws just like I'd never suggest repealling laws that making shooting someone for other than self-defense illegal.

How timely. I actually agree with this ruling.

Supreme Court rules on 'straw purchaser' law

BackInTex wrote:
Your analogy is flawed. Your logic is so bizarre I can't even begin to correct it. DUI laws make it illegal to improperly use something not to purchase own or properly operate something. I would never suggest repealling DUI laws just like I'd never suggest repealling laws that making shooting someone for other than self-defense illegal.

It's not a flawed analogy. Your argument is that various anti-gun laws don't work because some people still commit various crimes using guns and that, further, tougher laws won't work either. You could make the exact same argument about every criminal law.

The pro-gun crowd never takes into account the number of crimes that are deterred by tougher laws. Prohibit guns in schools and you eliminate kids getting hold of teachers' guns (no matter how carefully they are locked away) or teachers getting angry, upset, depressed, overly medicated (one way or another), or just plain exhibiting horrible judgment when they have a gun handy.

Another timely article; one about our school district. The high school pictured is my kids' high school.

Cy-Fair plans $55 million school security upgrade

This study by Securitas International, one of the leading private security companies in the world, takes a look at how employers can reduce violence in the workplace:

http://www.popcenter.org/library/crisp/guns.pdf

On page 18:

Compared to workplaces that prohibited all kinds of weapons, workplaces that allowed guns were 6.8 times as likely to have had a worker killed on the job; this increase in risk was statistically significant (95% confidence interval of 3.5 to 13).

In contrast, workplaces that prohibited guns but allowed other kinds of weapons were only 1.4 times as likely to experience an increase in the risk of having a homicide, which was statistically insignificant. The risk of workplace homicide was still 4.8 times higher and statistically significant (95% confidence interval 1.7 to 14) in workplaces that allowed guns. The authors concluded that, regardless of their intent, employer policies allowing guns on the job seem to increase the risk of fatal violence in the workplace.

Securitas' conclusions:

Enforcing a no-weapons policy for employees as allowed by law is a fundamental component of establishing effective [anti-violence] countermeasures. Weapons policies should be written, made known to all employees, and consistently enforced. Employer policies prohibiting firearms have been shown to reduce the incidence of homicide in the workplace, and they demonstrate a commitment to safety.

Establishing a gun-free workplace policy for clients and visitors as allowed by law is another positive step. In states that permit concealed weapons, setting such a policy may require posting specific notices to inform the public that weapons are prohibited.

Bob Juch wrote: If I was going to start shooting random people I'd make sure it was in a "gun-free zone".

Most gun deaths are not the result of people making conscious decisions to start shooting random people and then selecting a relatively "safe" spot to do so.

silverscreenselect wrote:

Bob Juch wrote: If I was going to start shooting random people I'd make sure it was in a "gun-free zone".

Most gun deaths are not the result of people making conscious decisions to start shooting random people and then selecting a relatively "safe" spot to do so.

I didn't say they were.

A third of gun deaths are suicides. Most of the rest are someone using a gun to settle a dispute.

silverscreenselect wrote: It's not a flawed analogy.

Um, yes it is. You confirm that by changing the analogy. But it is still flawed.

silverscreenselect wrote:Your argument is that various anti-gun laws don't work because some people still commit various crimes using guns and that, further, tougher laws won't work either. You could make the exact same argument about every criminal law.

silverscreenselect wrote:The pro-gun crowd never takes into account the number of crimes that are deterred by tougher laws.

Its not just about deterence. It is about freedom. I will agree that if we handcuff every person to a tree, far enough away from any loaded gun, every person, no one will ever be killed by a drunk driver, or shot. I'll agree to that. But that's a pretty tough law. But I do take into account there will be 30,000 fewer gun deaths and 10,000 fewer DUI deaths. But I think the price to freedom is too high despite 40,000 fewer deaths.

BackInTex wrote: But I think the price to freedom is too high despite 40,000 fewer deaths.

No freedom is absolute.

silverscreenselect wrote:

BackInTex wrote: But I think the price to freedom is too high despite 40,000 fewer deaths.

No freedom is absolute.

No it is not. I do agree with you there.

You think abortion should be available on demand, no matter the reason, no matter the age. I think there should be some restrictions.

I think gun ownership should have few restrictions (no felony convictions, legal residence), you think it should be very restrictive.

We're not really that different.

BackInTex wrote: We're not really that different.

I view having a gun in the home the same way I view smoking: it's stupid, immature, and dangerous for that person and those who share the same household. If it were merely a matter of gun owners posing a threat to their own safety, I wouldn't have that much of a problem. However, when they or their guns go out in public (and their guns can go out in public should they be lost or stolen), they pose a threat to my health and safety. It's a sorry commentary on today's society (and a warped reading of the Constitution, no matter what Justice Scalia says), that our various governments are more willing to protect me from the hazards of second hand smoke in a restaurant or public building than of the hazards of getting shot.

As the State of Georgia continues to relax its gun laws, headlines like this one will become much more commonplace:

Waffle House Employee Shoots, Kills Customer

That's two arguments in Waffle Houses in the last two weeks that resulted in two murders. I don't think giving even more employees and customers guns will make those restaurants any safer. But, on the plus side, you can't smoke in a Waffle House.