Dakota, don't school your kids there!!

[Lord Jim]

Well, there's that Rubeian Math again...

If something is not "100% effective," it therefore does "absolutely nothing".....

Applying that same "logic" people shouldn't bother with vaccinations, wearing seatbelts, or any other protective measure, since not being 100% effective, they do absolutely nothing....

Re the latest from the NRA:

I have made no secret of my complete disgust with, and contempt for, the leadership of the NRA, and the cynical self-serving approach they have taken to the whole national debate over how to reduce gun tragedies. This latest:

The study, which Mr Hutchinson said cost more than $1m (£660,000), said the NRA had the "nationally recognised expertise to develop and implement the stringent training courses" that armed security officers would need.

Just confirms what I said early on about the NRA leadership's approach to this issue...

While most Americans looked at the tragedy in Newtown and asked the question, "What kinds of commonsense measures can we take to reduce the likihood of such tragedies in the future?" LaPierre and Company looked at it and thought, "How can we parley this into a big payday?"

Truly revolting...

If we're going to have an armed security presence in the schools as one component of a strategy for reducing the liklihood of these horrific events, (and according to the Justice Department, 1/3 of US schools already do) then it should be provided through a system that funds an eight hour shift for a regular, on duty, local police officer...

The NRA, which has been nothing but a relentless opponent to any measure, no matter how modest, designed to reduce the level of lethality available to criminals and psychos, or to make it less likely they can obtain weapons, should not profit by one single penny for any increased security policy.

[Lord Jim]

Big RR, you are aware, I suppose, that for the first 200 years of this republic, it was universally criminal to abort a child. Furthermore, the only available means of birth control (other than simply not engaging in reproductive conduct) were both unpleasant and only marginally effective. And yet somehow enough women were able to endure the torture and slavery of bearing children so that we did not all die out.

You idiot.

Dave, it's that sort of gratuitous insult tagline, that invites some to make comparisons between you and the Santa Cruz Pseudo-Scientist....

[Big RR]

[BigRR, it's a badge of honor for Dave to call one of us an idiot. He's called me that. Sue. Scooter. Others I'm sure. Always makes my day

Indeed; but there's also no reason to respond substantively to comments which end with such an unimaginative insult.

[Guinevere]

[BigRR, it's a badge of honor for Dave to call one of us an idiot. He's called me that. Sue. Scooter. Others I'm sure. Always makes my day

Indeed; but there's also no reason to respond substantively to comments which end with such an unimaginative insult.

Of course not.

[oldr_n_wsr]

From what I have seen and read, only when armed opposition to the school shooters did they finally end it. Lanza still had plenty of bullets, clips, shells in his possecion but when the cops showed up, he killed himself. Maybe an armed guard could have ended it (shooting a pistol at a person and stopping him is not a small task) but maybe the armed guard could have ended right there. I would have no trouble sending my kids to school where there was an armed guard (or more than one as our schools have thousands of pupils and multiple schools).

Bottom line, the carnage ended when the armed opposition showed up in most/all cases.

[Crackpot]

Big RR, you are aware, I suppose, that for the first 200 years of this republic, it was universally criminal to abort a child. Furthermore, the only available means of birth control (other than simply not engaging in reproductive conduct) were both unpleasant and only marginally effective. And yet somehow enough women were able to endure the torture and slavery of bearing children so that we did not all die out.

You idiot.

Dave, it's that sort of gratuitous insult tagline, that invites some to make comparisons between you and the Santa Cruz Pseudo-Scientist....

Face it Jim they're different sides of the same coin.

[Jarlaxle]

Stupid statement. If it were true, the President would not be surrounded by ARMED GUARDS. Are you trolling for kicks or actually THIS FUCKING DENSE?

John F. Kennedy, Robert Kennedy, and Ronald Reagan all prove that even if we spend hundreds of millions/year trying to protect 1 person it is not 100% effective. ( I should add Gerald Ford since Squeaky Fromme would certainly have killed him if she knew how to work a gun. ) I don't thnk we can afford that much protection for every school child in the country, do you?


yrs,
rubato

I was going to reply...but something THIS FUCKING STUPID just speaks for itself.

[rubato]

What it says is that you have no answer for the facts.

Two DAs who were armed and warned that someone might kill them very soon were both shot dead. Even when the armed person is protecting himself and knows that there is a proximate threat, having a gun did nothing. Nothing.

Putting armed guards in schools is far less effective than that. Most of them would know that there was no proximate threat and could not sustain even the level of vigilance which those two DAs could.


yrs,
rubato

[dales]

I should add Gerald Ford since Squeaky Fromme would certainly have killed him if she knew how to work a gun.

[Scooter]

Well, there's that Rubeian Math again...

If something is not "100% effective," it therefore does "absolutely nothing".....

Applying that same "logic" people shouldn't bother with vaccinations, wearing seatbelts, or any other protective measure, since not being 100% effective, they do absolutely nothing....

But for an event that is already relatively rare, less than 100% effective can amount to close to nothing. And it's hard to put a price on a life, particularly the life of a child, but putting an army of armed guards in schools across the country is not going to be cheap by any means. Someone is going to have to be willing to take the flak for doing the math and determining if it's really worth it.

[oldr_n_wsr]

All I know is that when the armed police/swat/force showed up, all(most?) of these deluded individuals turned the gun on themselves. Lanza still had 100's of rounds of ammo left and only killed himself when the ARMED cops were closing in. As I said in the past, perhaps had their been an armed guard at the door, this might have been prevented. Maybe, maybe not, we'll never know. But an unarmed person (or persons) against an armed person stand next to no chance.

I am not for teachers/admins to be "required" to be armed. But they get "extensive" training (aka cop/paramilitary) and wish to carry a side arm, and the school board agrees, then let them. The principle tried to stop Lanza, had she been armed, there may have been a different outcome. Tackling/goiing after a heavily armed person takes guts. Had she had a pistol, a well placed shot or shots may have brought him down. She still may have died, but she might have saved numerous others.

.You can place all the restrictions you want on "scary guns" and magazine sizes and all the rest. If you think for a second that those intent on doing untold damage give a crap about "only 7 bullets to a magazine" or that I can't buy a bushmaster is going to stop the slaughter, then you are too stupid and deserve what you get. I know of more than one rifle that is more deadly and can inflict more damage that will not make the "scary gun" list.

And Cuomo starts yelping, "you don't need 10 bullets to shoot a deer". As I have said before, no I don't (as a matter of fact, I only load 3 bullets into my Remington 600 when hunting and only carry three more bullets, but I do carry a 10 shot 9mm pistol too), but when a moose or bear charge out of a thicket, I need rapid fire as many as I can as quickly as I can. Adrenalin and bolt action do not go together very well and a missed shot can, and will, mean your death. I am not asking for a fully automatic, but a semi-auto with plenty of ammo might be needed. Hopefully not, but one never knows.

[Big RR]

You hunt oldr? In areas where bear and moose are prevalent? Where exactly?

[oldr_n_wsr]

You hunt oldr? In areas where bear and moose are prevalent? Where exactly?

Maine.
My cousin (his father left him the cabin/land) has 260 acres that are surrounded by logging operations although it's pretty much depleted and they are waiting for the plantings to mature. If you take Maine and go top left to bottom right and visa versa and draw line, that's where his cabin is. Haven't been there in a few years 'cause of my personal problems, but there are moose and bear in the area. This year my cousin is saying he's going up for three weeks. I'll be happy with a week, but he can find the trails and the bed down areas and I can go in and "bag 'em". (I can only wish)

[Big RR]

That makes sense; I know you have said you live in NY, and while there are bears upstate, I don't think I've ever heard of a moose there.

[Sean]

.You can place all the restrictions you want on "scary guns" and magazine sizes and all the rest. If you think for a second that those intent on doing untold damage give a crap about "only 7 bullets to a magazine" or that I can't buy a bushmaster is going to stop the slaughter, then you are too stupid and deserve what you get. I know of more than one rifle that is more deadly and can inflict more damage that will not make the "scary gun" list.

Then surely the answer is to add that particular rifle (and others like it) to the "scary gun" list...
Jim said in an earlier post:

If something is not "100% effective," it therefore does "absolutely nothing".....

Applying that same "logic" people shouldn't bother with vaccinations, wearing seatbelts, or any other protective measure, since not being 100% effective, they do absolutely nothing....

This is a sentiment I agree with 100%, particularly as it can be applied to both sides of the whole 'gun control' argument. If wishing to see an effort being made to stop the senseless killing of children makes me stupid and deserving of what I get, then consider me both stupid and prepared to receive my just deserts. If these measures stop even one mass shooting they are worth a try. Of course, there is no way of measuring how many shootings are avoided by measures such as these so the 'Everyone Needs to be Armed to the Teeth' brigade can gleefully point to every shooting which is not avoided as 'evidence' that they were right all along...

And Cuomo starts yelping, "you don't need 10 bullets to shoot a deer". As I have said before, no I don't (as a matter of fact, I only load 3 bullets into my Remington 600 when hunting and only carry three more bullets, but I do carry a 10 shot 9mm pistol too), but when a moose or bear charge out of a thicket, I need rapid fire as many as I can as quickly as I can. Adrenalin and bolt action do not go together very well and a missed shot can, and will, mean your death. I am not asking for a fully automatic, but a semi-auto with plenty of ammo might be needed. Hopefully not, but one never knows.

Not really a sport then this hunting lark...

[Big RR]

And Cuomo starts yelping, "you don't need 10 bullets to shoot a deer". As I have said before, no I don't (as a matter of fact, I only load 3 bullets into my Remington 600 when hunting and only carry three more bullets, but I do carry a 10 shot 9mm pistol too), but when a moose or bear charge out of a thicket, I need rapid fire as many as I can as quickly as I can.

Honestly, when the bear/moose is charging, do you really think you'd have time to get off more than 10 rounds before it stops you permanently? you'd better make sure they first shot (or couple of shots) pay off.

[Crackpot]

Is that a situation where you want to risk finding out?

[oldr_n_wsr]

With a bolt actions the most you could get off is 1 maybe two. The pistol can come out and get mayber three or four. Aim is the problem as it is an instinct thing and one is inclined to fire too early or too late. But with a semi, one can bring back to middle and squeeze off a few more. Ten rounds is fine as by then they have either backed off (if a bear, moose don't back off) have gone down, or I have gone down.

Ever watch Yukon Men (ro some show like that showing people in Alaska). More than a few carry M16 style weapons with 30 shot clips for those reasons. Only up there you volverines also, which is another animal that doesn't back off.

[Big RR]

Is that a situation where you want to risk finding out?

Not really, but if you couldn't get off more than a few rounds, even with a semiautomatic rifle, this "protection" is no justification for larger magazines.

oldr--my only point was that you would rarely, if ever, have enough time to squeeze off more than a few rounds before you are "down". Sure, bolt actions might not be the best protection, but 30 rounds would seem to be overkill, and if your aim is not true, you'd probably be found with a rifle containing 23 or more rounds beside you.

[Joe Guy]

You don't need no stinkin' guns. The best way to deal with a bear is to grin him down.