arma virumque cano (et alia)
Check this out Mike.http://www.denverpost.com/breakingnews/ci_22343936/el-paso-county-father-shoots-at-sons-roommate
Good one. I posted it today.
More lies from Dan Gross. The "armed guards" at Columbine were outside the building. The weapons at Fort Hood were locked in the armory. Soldiers aren't allowed to carry unless it's part of their duty.What we have here is two con artists and one honest man. Note that the honest man is the one who is defending our rights. Funny how those two go together.
Greg, the exact location of the Columbine guards at the critical moment does not change the fact that armed guards were there and could not stop it. The Army base has MPs, does it not?
Those facts do matter. The armed good guys at Columbine were outside. That means that the two boys had a tactical advantage. They were inside with plenty of cover and concealment. The armed good guys weren't a part of the school, so they didn't know the layout or the people. An armed teacher inside, on the other hand, would know the school and know who belonged and who was doing something wrong.The police officer who shot down that terrorist at Ft. Hood was also outside. She stopped him, but only after he'd caused a lot of damage. This is the point that we keep making to you--law enforcement can't be everywhere. In a free society, law enforcement shouldn't be all over.Look at the facts and the tactical situation before saying that an armed good guy can't stop an armed bad guy.
You're equivocating as usual Greg.
How? I presented facts. I'm saying that a simplistic view of things won't get us to valid answers. The left often accuses the right of wanting simple answers to every question, but here you are, looking for the same thing.
For you to call Dan Gross a con artist is just further evidence that you are out of touch with the mainstream, Greg. Name calling doesn't solve the problem of too many shootings. What is your solution? Do you have one other than more guns in more places carried by more people? It hasn't worked so far. At least Dan is suggesting real solutions to real problems. People are dying. Parents are burying their children. Things are changing. We need to do something.
We need to do something? We already are doing something. Rates of violent crime are down and have been dropping since the early 90s. The first thing that we all need to do is gain some perspective.The next thing is to recognize that good citizens have the right to defend themselves. Teachers should be able to defend themselves and their students.But Gross isn't offering any solutions that will stop the rare events such as the one in Newtown. What he is doing is trying to chip away at the gun rights of those of us who aren't a problem. The first impulse of a small mind is to look busy when something happens. The first impulse of a con artist is to exploit a sensational event.Japete, you complain about name-calling, but you have no moral high ground to stand upon. When I tried to disagree respectfully with you on your blog, you were dismissive. A haughty attitude is no better than insults. I'm at least willing to engage in the conversation, rather than fan myself furiously like some Southern matron and refuse to speak.
Greg, as far as I know, japete does not go in for name calling. The fact that you FELT she had a haughty attitude doesn't mean shit because you're one of the more paranoid fanatics in the gun-rights movement. Notice, I do go in for a limited amount of name calling, when appropriate.
She's as haughty as Dog Gone. When they're presented with facts and logic, they refuse to address the points made. Japete even states outright that she doesn't like what the person said and won't answer. That's why she reminds me of some Southern matriarch from an old movie who faints to stop the men from talking politics.Regarding your claim about my psychological state, in the absence of evidence, your comment is projection, not assessment.
Hey! How about a reality check?http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IAZRL3mlVv8&feature=player_embeddedorlin sellers
Ah, reality. Gun control freaks never get in touch with it, alas.
Yeah, I saw that. I'll bet there's an explanation, but even if he got the numbers 35 and 50 mixed up, the point is the same. The UK has 4 times fewer murders than we do per capita.
That's murders from all causes, just as our homicide numbers are. People still get murdered in the U.K. Their killers use different methods. But if guns are the cause of violence, why doesn't the Czech Republic have a high rate of murder? Why doesn't Vermont? There's no correlation between gun laws and rates of violence.