Site Search:
 
TEFL International Supports Dave's ESL Cafe
TEFL Courses, TESOL Course, English Teaching Jobs - TEFL International
Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

Dark Knight Rises Massacre
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 26, 27, 28, 29, 30  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current Events Forum
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
atwood



Joined: 26 Dec 2009

PostPosted: Tue Aug 28, 2012 5:31 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

visitorq wrote:
Steelrails wrote:
geldedgoat wrote:
Steelrails wrote:
Aside from combat veterans, who exactly is "well-trained" when it comes to a gunfight?


Look at the video. Do you see how far away the cops were? No one carrying a pistol should have under 80% accuracy at that range.


Right, but how does the cops being poor shots prove that random citizens would be good shots?

It's called the 'benefit of the doubt'. Show me a similar case where an armed civilian drew a gun to defend himself and then went on to 'accidentally' shoot 10 innocent bystanders. Until then, concede that you've got nothing.

You've got nothing until you can show armed citizens taking down armed shooters.
Quote:
In 2008 there were 680 accidental shooting deaths in the United States, with more than 15,500 shooting injuries.

And that's from the Survivor's Club, who are for guns.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
visitorq



Joined: 11 Jan 2008

PostPosted: Tue Aug 28, 2012 5:33 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

^ I'm afraid there is no logic contained in your post above. Nor is there any context.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
geldedgoat



Joined: 05 Mar 2009

PostPosted: Tue Aug 28, 2012 7:03 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Steelrails wrote:
Right, but how does the cops being poor shots prove that random citizens would be good shots?


It was never my intent to prove that. And I was also being very generous with the 20% miss rate, so those cops were a helluva lot worse than just 'poor shots.'

atwood wrote:
geldedgoat wrote:
Many gun advocates are well trained in the use of the firearms they use and carry. I fall into this category, and I'm assuming the other advocates here do as well. Many (most?) police do not fall into this category, as they are not required to train as regularly as they should. The police in the video are obvious examples. Those who are well trained in defending themselves with firearms do not feel comfortable abandoning their right to defend themselves with firearms in the hopes that untrained officers (like those in the video) can protect them.

In short, this latest incident should be an excellent example in opposition to the idea of gun bans (note: bans, not some measures of simple control).


You seem to be hiding behind unproven generalities. How many is the many you refer to?


Read my post again. How many is entirely irrelevant to my ability to effectively defend myself and the cops' obvious inability to do the same.

Quote:
have any proof for your assertions about police training?


Yes.

Quote:
At a recent use-of-force class I was instructing for a Public Risk Management group, the topic of firearms training frequency came up. The discussion was prompted by the fact that during the latest round of FBI suspect interviews conducted for the third book in the Officer Assaulted and Murdered trilogy (“Violent Encounters”), it was revealed that those suspects believed that police officers trained between two and three times a week with their firearms. In reality, most police departments only train about two times a year, averaging less than 15 hours annually. In contrast to our frequency of training, those same suspects revealed that they practiced on average 23 times a year (or almost twice a month) with their handguns.

During a poll taken during this class which represented about a half dozen Florida law enforcement agencies, I asked how many train more than twice a year. No hands went up. When asked how many train or qualify with their duty guns only once a year. Everyone raised their hands. Hence, the genesis for this article.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
atwood



Joined: 26 Dec 2009

PostPosted: Tue Aug 28, 2012 3:25 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

visitorq wrote:
^ I'm afraid there is no logic contained in your post above. Nor is there any context.

I'm afraid that you protestest too much as a way of dodging the issue.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Steelrails



Joined: 12 Mar 2009
Location: Earth, Solar System

PostPosted: Tue Aug 28, 2012 6:00 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
Read my post again. How many is entirely irrelevant to my ability to effectively defend myself and the cops' obvious inability to do the same.


I'm sorry, but a middle school student would be able to see through the flaws in your premise.

First off, unless you have been involved in a shootout, your claim that "you'd perform better" is entirely theoretical. All this time you practiced with your gun, was anyone shooting back at you with live ammunition and trying to kill you?

I think that that might significantly alter your performance.

Also, how is it you can use one incident with cops to draw a conclusion about all cops?

Do all cop shootings result in innocent bystanders getting shot?

Quote:
It's called the 'benefit of the doubt'. Show me a similar case where an armed civilian drew a gun to defend himself and then went on to 'accidentally' shoot 10 innocent bystanders. Until then, concede that you've got nothing.


I'm sorry but "benefit of the doubt isn't good enough". You have one incident where bystanders were hit, most by fragments. That's not enough to draw conclusions upon. Any middle schooler who has taken a math or science class should know that.

Quote:
In contrast to our frequency of training, those same suspects revealed that they practiced on average 23 times a year (or almost twice a month) with their handguns.


Well if these suspects are so good with their guns, how come we have all these innocent people getting hit by stray bullets and accidentally shot in drive-bys and the like?

Please gun advocates stick to reality. You can make the claim that you should be able to carry a gun for self-defense without making fantastical claims like "armed citizens would be better" "armed citizens wouldn't have friendly fire incidents" "cops are bad with guns" "I would do better than those guys in that incident" "My AK strikes fear into the heart of the government".

Just say you like guns and think you should be able to carry one for protection, hunting, and as a hobby. You don't need to say anything more than that. Keep it simple. The second you start making screwball claims, people start tuning you out and reinforce their notions that dangerous lunatics who lack a firm grasp of reality are the types that are carrying guns.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
geldedgoat



Joined: 05 Mar 2009

PostPosted: Tue Aug 28, 2012 7:05 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Honestly, Steelrails, I'd love to answer your objections, but they don't make the slightest bit of sense next to the statements I've actually made. I'm tempted to make claims of strawmen, but I don't think you're doing it intentionally. The only thing I can say is take a breath, reread what I posted, and then have another shot. I know you're an intelligent guy, so I can only assume you're taking visitorq's overreach and applying it to my statements.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Fat_Elvis



Joined: 17 Aug 2006
Location: In the ghetto

PostPosted: Sun Sep 02, 2012 2:40 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Two shot in New Jersey the other day

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2196772/New-Jersey-shooting-rampage-gunman-tweeted-killing-ALL-workers-praised-Hitler-great-military-leader-years-burst-supermarket-AK-47.html
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
visitorq



Joined: 11 Jan 2008

PostPosted: Sun Sep 02, 2012 2:04 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Fat_Elvis wrote:
Two shot in New Jersey the other day

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2196772/New-Jersey-shooting-rampage-gunman-tweeted-killing-ALL-workers-praised-Hitler-great-military-leader-years-burst-supermarket-AK-47.html

Two people? He could have killed 10 times that amount if he'd just slammed his car into a city bus or something... This story just goes to show that guns are nowhere near the problem some people make them out to be.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Steelrails



Joined: 12 Mar 2009
Location: Earth, Solar System

PostPosted: Sun Sep 02, 2012 3:07 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

visitorq wrote:
Fat_Elvis wrote:
Two shot in New Jersey the other day

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2196772/New-Jersey-shooting-rampage-gunman-tweeted-killing-ALL-workers-praised-Hitler-great-military-leader-years-burst-supermarket-AK-47.html

Two people? He could have killed 10 times that amount if he'd just slammed his car into a city bus or something... This story just goes to show that guns are nowhere near the problem some people make them out to be.


So because only two people die, guns aren't a problem?

And btw I think people are concerned about the fact that every day in America guns kill dozens of people and are used to commit thousands of crimes. Automobiles aren't used to intentionally murder dozens of people every day.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
fermentation



Joined: 22 Jun 2009

PostPosted: Sun Sep 02, 2012 5:14 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Steelrails wrote:
So because only two people die, guns aren't a problem?


Weren't you the same person who was okay with motorcycles on the sidewalks because only a few people die every year from them?

Quote:
Automobiles aren't used to intentionally murder dozens of people every day.


No, just unintentionally.

Quote:

Two people? He could have killed 10 times that amount if he'd just slammed his car into a city bus or something... This story just goes to show that guns are nowhere near the problem some people make them out to be.


Funny thing is, this is the exact same line of reasoning the gun control crowd uses when you show them a story of people killing people with means other than guns. Person kills 9 people with a knife. "Well, he could've killed more if he had an assault weapon!" Guy kills two people with a gun. "OMG! Ban guns!"[/quote]
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Captain Corea



Joined: 28 Feb 2005
Location: Seoul

PostPosted: Sun Sep 02, 2012 5:27 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

fermentation wrote:
Steelrails wrote:
Automobiles aren't used to intentionally murder dozens of people every day.


No, just unintentionally.



Isn't that a notable difference?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Titus



Joined: 19 May 2012

PostPosted: Sun Sep 02, 2012 5:40 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I'm surprised that there has been so little discussion about the role that media plays in cultivating a crazed society:

http://medicalxpress.com/news/2012-08-special-international-commission-media-violence.html

Shows like Modern Family and Glee betray them. The media knows that American values are whatever was on prime time last night and uses this fact to push the progressive agenda. Media consumption impacts behavior. A society consuming violent media will probably become more violent. Certain individuals will be more vulnerable to this. I know, we're "free" and as such don't limit what is produced by the handful of people who control media (we're at the mercy of those who have media freedom), but it's material, no?

Or do we only talk about the merit of firearm ownership? I note that the very same media who creates violent programming also push the idea that the real conversation needs to be about guns.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Steelrails



Joined: 12 Mar 2009
Location: Earth, Solar System

PostPosted: Sun Sep 02, 2012 8:29 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
Weren't you the same person who was okay with motorcycles on the sidewalks because only a few people die every year from them?


Yeah, is in like, a few, as in like, three.

And those deaths are unintentional.

This is why I support the ownership of guns for recreation and self-defense. Only a few people die a year in accidents because of them.

On the other hand guns used for crime and violence kill thousands each year, so I support different measures for them.

If people started using scooters on sidewalks as vehicles to murder people with, I might change my mind.

Quote:
Funny thing is, this is the exact same line of reasoning the gun control crowd uses when you show them a story of people killing people with means other than guns. Person kills 9 people with a knife. "Well, he could've killed more if he had an assault weapon!" Guy kills two people with a gun. "OMG! Ban guns!"


Using extreme outliers to prove things either way when it comes to guns is silly. You can apply the same things to bombs, cars, chemicals, airplanes, etc.

I think gun control advocates should focus on the 1-2 per day shot in a city, rather than these extreme examples.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
atwood



Joined: 26 Dec 2009

PostPosted: Sun Sep 02, 2012 10:02 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Steelrails wrote:
Quote:
Weren't you the same person who was okay with motorcycles on the sidewalks because only a few people die every year from them?


Yeah, is in like, a few, as in like, three.

And those deaths are unintentional.

This is why I support the ownership of guns for recreation and self-defense. Only a few people die a year in accidents because of them.

On the other hand guns used for crime and violence kill thousands each year, so I support different measures for them.

If people started using scooters on sidewalks as vehicles to murder people with, I might change my mind.

Quote:
Funny thing is, this is the exact same line of reasoning the gun control crowd uses when you show them a story of people killing people with means other than guns. Person kills 9 people with a knife. "Well, he could've killed more if he had an assault weapon!" Guy kills two people with a gun. "OMG! Ban guns!"


Using extreme outliers to prove things either way when it comes to guns is silly. You can apply the same things to bombs, cars, chemicals, airplanes, etc.

I think gun control advocates should focus on the 1-2 per day shot in a city, rather than these extreme examples.

Come on, just admit he caught you out with with your scooter argument.

As for the 1-2 per day figure, UM (the Funky Winkerbean hall monitor of Dave's) will most likely respond with some statistics or other.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
fermentation



Joined: 22 Jun 2009

PostPosted: Sun Sep 02, 2012 10:07 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Captain Corea wrote:
fermentation wrote:
Steelrails wrote:
Automobiles aren't used to intentionally murder dozens of people every day.


No, just unintentionally.



Isn't that a notable difference?


Yes. 32,885 people died in traffic accidents in the US in 2010. 8775 people were killed via firearms. I don't know the details, but I'm guessing most of those automobile fatalities were unintentional. An object that isn't designed with killing in mind kills many more people by accident than weapons designed to kill used by people who were using them with the intention to kill. And a car requires testing and a license to be able to use while a gun doesn't.

If safety is your main concern, you gotta be consistent. If you're going to restrict firearms on the basis of safety, you should do the same for a lot of other things.

Quote:
Shows like Modern Family and Glee betray them.


Are you seriously linking Glee to gun violence? Then again, if I watched that show maybe I'd wanna start shooting people.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current Events Forum All times are GMT - 8 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 26, 27, 28, 29, 30  Next
Page 27 of 30

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


This page is maintained by the one and only Dave Sperling.
Contact Dave's ESL Cafe
Copyright © 2013 Dave Sperling. All Rights Reserved.

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group

TEFL International Supports Dave's ESL Cafe
TEFL Courses, TESOL Course, English Teaching Jobs - TEFL International