So, just wondering...

[Pandalsson 1st MRB]

This is the average American (give or take a few deficiencies in actually real-world empathy) that could plausibly apply for jobs as security guards in the public places that pro-gun people would want to see protected by armed individuals...?

If a movie can make even a small sample of Americans react this way, how can the idea of increasing the presence of guns in public places be, in any possible way, be a good thing?

I would think that people would be scared shitless to know that, at any given place where anyone arguing "if they had people at guns at those schools, those tragedies could have been averted" would want them, if they weren't white, middle-to-upper class looking, and didn't act in ridiculous leap-of-logic interpretation of "shady", that they could easily be the target of one of those aforementioned testosterone-driven goombas.

While I understand that Americans find it's constitutional right to own guns, doesn't it at least beg the requirement to have any pro-gun advocate display the minimal ability to distinguish between the imaginary and the factual?

Sigh. The worst of it all is that these people likely have no mental deficiency, are not in destitute social-economic situations, or have any history of abuse. Instead, most of these folks would probably figure as average white middle-america for demographic considerations. Scary indeed.

Here's the original story.

[Yamagata 1st MRB]

Your word-smithery is amusificating, that is my opinion and you are welcome.

[Kanganis]

This is the average American (give or take a few deficiencies in actually real-world empathy) that could plausibly apply for jobs as security guards in the public places that pro-gun people would want to see protected by armed individuals...?

If a movie can make even a small sample of Americans react this way, how can the idea of increasing the presence of guns in public places be, in any possible way, be a good thing?

I would think that people would be scared shitless to know that, at any given place where anyone arguing "if they had people at guns at those schools, those tragedies could have been averted" would want them, if they weren't white, middle-to-upper class looking, and didn't act in ridiculous leap-of-logic interpretation of "shady", that they could easily be the target of one of those aforementioned testosterone-driven goombas.

While I understand that Americans find it's constitutional right to own guns, doesn't it at least beg the requirement to have any pro-gun advocate display the minimal ability to distinguish between the imaginary and the factual?

Sigh. The worst of it all is that these people likely have no mental deficiency, are not in destitute social-economic situations, or have any history of abuse. Instead, most of these folks would probably figure as average white middle-america for demographic considerations. Scary indeed.

Here's the original story.

You see your demographic is not Average Americans. It is Average Americans from the south-eastern/Middle United States. Don't get me wrong. Stupid, poorly educated americans exsist everywhere. However, the streets are lined with these bigots, racists, and rednecks in those reigons. Also keep in mind that when you look on social networking sites you will find millions of stupid people. I guess people of average intelligence or higher have no need for twitter. I personally am ashamed that I live in a country where everyone's opinion can be swayed by a movie. Never the less a ficticious movie! Oh well. I don't know what happened, but the US became a cultural wasteland.

[S. Richards]

That's your average everyday ignorant peon in it's natural habitat actually. One dead giveaway is the fact that they have a Twitter account, not to mention that unless it's controversial the media isn't gonna report it so the vast majority of people could formulate an objective opinion off of it. It's okay though, situational awareness is not a trait everyone is proficient in, just like common sense isn't that common of a virtue nowadays. If I remember correctly, the same Newtown'esque situation happened in Montreal at Ecole Polytechnique with a massacre prompting more stringent gun control similar to our concurrently proposed laws. Then in 2006 another shooting happened at Dawson College in Montreal, making this gun control effectively useless at reducing massacres or making them any less deadly, the only difference was made in Law Enforcement reaction and procedures. Take your useless assumptions about your "average" Americans and "average" pro-gun advocate elsewehere you "average" moron.

But, on the off chance you were to propose a solution, say like instead of security guards having a uniformed police presence at more and/or all schools instead of stating the obvious and blatantly making assumptions that all pro-gun owners are a pool of Darwins failures, I might of been inclinded to side with you on the topic.

[Zorbanos 1st MRB]

i completely disagree with the idea that these people represent ALL americans, or that they reflect the ideas of ALL gun advocates. even to infer that they reflect 25% of americans, in my opinion, is incorrect. people like me all around this country would read this story and think these people are retarded. clearly these people are stupid, but lets not jump to conclusions here. just because alot of people run out on twitter and spew bigotry, doesn't mean they are actually about to go out and start killing people. After all, if they wanted to, they could do it right now. Alot of morons talk big and tough on the internet. Its easy to spew hatred from behind a keyboard.

and just because someone is a bigot, does that make them violent? does that mean their judgement is clouded to the point that they are just going to open fire on someone? do you think there arent thousands if not tens of thousands of police officers and soldiers around the world who are bigots? are we to assume that they are 90% likely to use unnecessary force in an inappropriate situation just because they are a bigot? sure alot of people who fit that description have in the past committed crimes in those situations, but i dont think its as common of an occurrence as this post is inferring.

more to the issue though is the point i made before. just because some people spit out some racist or ignorant shit on the internet does not reflect their best judgment or what they are actually gonna do.

to quote eminem "A lot of people think that.. what I say on records or what I talk about on a record, that I actually do in real life or that I believe in it Or if I say that, I wanna kill somebody, that.. I'm actually gonna do it or that I believe in it" the point simply being, alot of the time, people just say shit to say it. i mean c'mon, its fucking twitter. i would disagree that you can take what someone says on twitter seriously.

[S. Richards]

do you think there arent thousands if not tens of thousands of police officers and soldiers around the world who are bigots? are we to assume that they are 90% likely to use unnecessary force in an inappropriate situation just because they are a bigot?

Bigotry and racism is a driving factor behind almost all military conflicts. It's almost Pavlovian to the point where it's ingrained that the enemy is not a human being but an inferior sub-human, case and point being Vietnamese being referred to as gooks, chinks, or slant eyes instead of North Vietnamese soldier, enemy or troop. The same follows for almost any conflict, more and more the enemy is referred to in a bigoted nature through the use of slang and slurs to de-humanize them and make it easier for the aggressor to engage. But, I digress, I don't see myself engaging any Muslims/Arabs here in the states with my legally obtained firearms because I was trained to be a bigot back in the military. Then again, maybe I'm that abnormal American for not being a bigot. God I wish I was normal...

[Gooderham 1st MRB]

Make sure your comments are civil and respectful or they will be deleted.

Thank you,

Capt. K. Gooderham

[Kanganis]

Make sure your comments are civil and respectful or they will be deleted.

Thank you,

Capt. K. Gooderham

I don't know who you are referring to here however I do apologize if my comments were not civil and my opinion was expressed in a rude manner.

[Armstrong 1st MRB]

Its a sad reality that there are more than a few people in this world who are racists and still believe all of the Social-Darwinism crap that was spewed in the early 20th century and perpetuated. The even greater shame is that its these people who are foolish enough to support the radical and malicious politicians who want to perpetuate these ideas, and are willing to do anything to see it done. A lot of this, I believe stems from a lack of real education, but even more so from a lack of a good upbringing which emphasized tolerance of other people and their cultures.

We are all the same shade of red on the inside, and we are all from the same origins in the end but these people just can't believe that. This is what I believe holds our species back, the fact that we cannot get along and call ourselves humans and not 'Americans', 'Irish', 'Indians', 'Chinese', 'Whites', 'Blacks', or however we define ourselves. I'm not saying that we get rid of these distinctions if people are happy to be them, but why can we not think of ourselves as members of a wider species called Humanity rather than belonging to a country, 'race', or religion.

Personally I think we'll only reach that point if we come into contact with an Alien species on a global scale, but that's just me.

[Lopez]

People love to talk a big game on the internet

[Stroops]

People love to talk a big game on the internet

Its the american way

[C. Small 1st MRB]

Shouldn't really comment on this because I'm not american but oh well , all I'm going to say Is 30,000 gun deaths a year in america , 85 In the U.K

[Pandalsson 1st MRB]

@Richards

Really? Did you actually read what I said or did you just assume that it because it wasn't pro-gun that I'm sort of bleeding heart liberal with some agenda to rob you of your constitutional rights?

My main point is that however well-trained any person might be with the use of firearms, if the spirit of the person is broken, that's just a powder keg waiting to explode. While I can't be sure that many security firms process their potential employees with psych evals, I don't think it would be a stretch to say that people with anger/control issues would apply for positions that give them some sort of outlet for those deficiencies. The proposal of having people with guns "protecting" sensitive areas just doesn't seem like a good proposal when you can't guarantee the state of mind of those you're going to ask to be responsible for that protection.

And as for police presence, Montreal has been subject to a number of police brutality issues (many racially motivated). People here mobilize to protest against it. I might recall seeing news about certain states still labouring under those same issues. So assuming you're talking about every sensitive area with police, the pure logistics makes it just more likely for those few bad apples to fall through in a way to fast-track hiring/training procedures to fill the often over-worked law enforcement agencies. And who do you think they would more likely put into those assignments? The rookies most likely and increasing the chance of those recently graduated bad apples to be put into potentially volatile situations.

However, Richards, if you actually look further, you'll note that I'm talking about Americans influenced by a MOVIE to make comments that link violence (do you need me to go back and quote you some of those twitter comments?) with bigotry. And if THAT doesn't scare you about the mindset of people who MIGHT one day be armed in a legally mandated manner to oversee security in PUBLIC PLACES, then it's highly doubtful that ANY kind constructive suggestion would actually influence your opinion.

As for media only reporting the controversial, controversial would more along the lines of Senators saying things like, oh just off the top of my head, "legitimate rape". I'd like to think that publicly voicing imaginary acts of violence towards a particular demographic from a movie plot would be more along the lines of "should not be tolerated" and fairly newsworthy. But then again, who am I, this "average moron", to know differently from beloved Fox News. I'd have to say that I totally agree when you mention that common sense is surprisingly not that common these days.

@All

Not really sure how having a twitter account is a direct corollary to stupidity or what not. But it's not as if it's just a case of saying something for the sake of saying something stupid. People saying this kind of stuff have to, somewhere, honestly believe they are in the right. That's scary for me.

@Lopez

Sad but so true.

@Kanganis

Don't worry. Gooderham was communicating something specific to someone(s) specific. And that someone(s) wasn't you.

[S. Richards]

Don't watch Fox, nor am I a Republican. Another assumption. And no, I read "Some people are racist and shouldn't hold certain jobs" according to your post, and that your just stating the obvious more or less. Your logic is that we shouldn't protect schools because sometime, sooner or later, the security guard will have a bad day and massacre a school. If thats your logic we might as will get rid of the military and all law enforcement. Your trying to safeguard sensitive areas by neglecting any sort of absolute protective measures, because we can't guarantee the state of mind of said individual. Am I the only person who thinks this is completely ridiculous, I mean instead of taking chances with physical pre-cautions that are an absolute means to end of a potential threat with a miniscule chance of failure, using an all powerful mighty set of laws which will prevent such things from occuring because people "must" follow them? Personally being a father, I'd rather have the sense of security knowing my son would have a fighting chance until law enforcement arrive because there are armed individuals at the school rather then just leaving it open for Joe Schmoe Sociopath to blow him away.

And as for police presence, Montreal has been subject to a number of police brutality issues (many racially motivated). People here mobilize to protest against it. I might recall seeing news about certain states still labouring under those same issues. So assuming you're talking about every sensitive area with police, the pure logistics makes it just more likely for those few bad apples to fall through in a way to fast-track hiring/training procedures to fill the often over-worked law enforcement agencies. And who do you think they would more likely put into those assignments? The rookies most likely and increasing the chance of those recently graduated bad apples to be put into potentially volatile situations.

Get rid of your Police then, your typical Montreal Law Enforcment must all be bigots.

Also, they would put their more senior officers on said duties, since they've put their time in on patrols already. Rookies would be out on patrol still learning the ropes which would give them sufficient time to be weeded out. Read more, post less.

Make sure your comments are civil and respectful or they will be deleted.

Thank you,

Capt. K. Gooderham

This is the average American

Respectful is not generalizing an entire nation off of one news article about a few bigots from said country.

[Zorbanos 1st MRB]

All ill say Panda, while your point is logically sound, its very speculative. And ill even further concede that situations like what you're describing do happen, and all too often. But again, i dont think there can be any conclusions drawn from what a bunch of people on twitter say. I dont see the link between gun violence and internet bigotry.

[Magoo]

It was in the news recently that the NYC Fire Commissioner's son made some racist tweets that resulted in his resignation from his EMT position. EMTs are supposed to provide the same standard of care to everyone regardless of race, religion, gender, etc. The city felt that because this guy made some racist tweets he could not be trusted to provide the same standard of care to everyone. Sometimes there is a bad banana in the bunch and there really isn't much you can do about that. I certainly wouldn't want to remove all EMTs from service because of this incident though. Also, to become an EMT or to hold almost any civil service position in the city of NY you must pass a psychiatric evaluation.

I don't think that it should be a requirement for gun owners to pass a psychiatric evaluation in order to own/retain a gun. And a lot of people will think that my thinking doesn't make sense to them. I think that you give way too much power over when you make a law like that. It could turn into the equivalent of the machine gun stamp. You can legally own a fully automatic machine gun if you get a stamp from the government. Just go ahead and see if you can actually get one of those stamps though. What if it turned out that more and more people started to fail their psychiatric evaluations?

During the weeks that followed hurricane Sandy I had my eyes opened to why gun ownership is necessary. We were without power for over two weeks. No one knows what that will do to a person or community until they are living it. I was one of the only people in my community to have a working car and generator. People were stealing gas from other people's cars to keep their own generators running. My generator was kept chained so that it would at least make some noise if someone were to try to take it. Because the chain wasn't going to be enough. My town has only one police car on patrol, except when it is nearing shift change. The next closest police car is about 5-10 minutes away in a neighboring town. They must have had the police working overtime because there was a large police presence during the weeks that followed Sandy. However, the police cars were all stationed at the working gas stations and not on patrol. The power outage also took out the cell towers, so we were without a means to call for help even if we needed it. I was relieved to know that I had a gun in my home to protect myself and my property during that event.

[Pandalsson 1st MRB]

Don't watch Fox, nor am I a Republican...

I guess that when I was replying to "controversial" being the modus operandi of Fox News you felt the need to equate "from [the] beloved" with "from YOUR beloved". It's nice to see you filling in the blanks for me however incorrectly.

"Some people are racist and shouldn't hold certain jobs" according to your post,

No. Wrong. Again. The worry is not that some people are racists and shouldn't hold certain jobs. The worry is that gun advocates response to massacres in schools is that a "responsible" person with a gun could have stopped it. I'm just saying that as long as people have a hard time distinguishing a movie from real-life then the last thing you should want is more people with guns in public places because it might actually increase the frequency of gun related incidents but on a smaller scale. It's like trading one potential tragedy for another.

I mean instead of taking chances with physical pre-cautions that are an absolute means to end of a potential threat with a miniscule chance of failure, using an all powerful mighty set of laws which will prevent such things from occuring because people "must" follow them? Personally being a father, I'd rather have the sense of security knowing my son would have a fighting chance until law enforcement arrive because there are armed individuals at the school rather then just leaving it open for Joe Schmoe Sociopath to blow him away.

Wait, didn't you say that you wanted law enforcement on the scene? So why would they need to arrive? Shouldn't the presence of the... well, at least 2 because of breaks, at least 2 more so that the whole area can be covered, so say you have 4 *SENIOR* cops (because the rookies would be on the beats and the veterans would love nothing but to have a babysitting assignment) in each school? That should be enough to not need more no? Oh wait, how many schools are there? Don't know but that private security contracting is probably might attractive to politicians if every school needed to be protected.

Read more, post less.

LOL, I'm appreciating the irony here.

@Zorbanos

The link is, and it's been since my OP, that the decision to put more guns into play in public areas requires the presence of responsible and highly aware individuals. This article just reminded me how rare that can be.

[Magoo]

No. Wrong. Again. The worry is not that some people are racists and shouldn't hold certain jobs. The worry is that gun advocates response to massacres in schools is that a "responsible" person with a gun could have stopped it. I'm just saying that as long as people have a hard time distinguishing a movie from real-life then the last thing you should want is more people with guns in public places because it might actually increase the frequency of gun related incidents but on a smaller scale. It's like trading one potential tragedy for another.o put more guns into play in public areas requires the presence of responsible and highly aware individuals. This article just reminded me how rare that can be.

To stop a person that is using fists, you just have to know how to fight. To stop a person with a knife, you probably have to really know how to fight or have a bigger knife. To stop a person with a gun, you probably have to really really really...oh wait. You probably need a gun for that.

[Zorbanos 1st MRB]

I can see where you're coming from then Panda. Don't lost all hope though!

Magoo, your post gives interesting insight to the topic. The argument for personal firearms is for situations like that, because you can't always call for help. Sometimes there are emergencies, and not just when a burglar is trying to rob you in your home.

I personally am shocked by what happened at Sandy Hook, from the perspective of the lack of protection for the kids. At my school, and every school in my district (I would imagine most of Texas is like this but I don't know) there was always a police officer, titled a police liaison officer, at the school all day every school day, from elementary to senior year. On top of that, we had strict, specific lockdown procedures in the event of an intruder, and we practiced them frequently throughout the year. I find myself wondering why Sandy Hook didn't have the same protection and procedures.

[S. Richards]

Wait, didn't you say that you wanted law enforcement on the scene? So why would they need to arrive? Shouldn't the presence of the... well, at least 2 because of breaks, at least 2 more so that the whole area can be covered, so say you have 4 *SENIOR* cops (because the rookies would be on the beats and the veterans would love nothing but to have a babysitting assignment) in each school? That should be enough to not need more no? Oh wait, how many schools are there? Don't know but that private security contracting is probably might attractive to politicians if every school needed to be protected.

It would be ideal to have a uniformed police presence, yes. Every school resource officer I've ever come across has been a senior officer, this is from experience not to mention my father's a cop and I just verified this with him, not from uneducated, baseless assumptions. And your right, private contracting would probably be the more cost effective way, but whats to say one of the qualification for such a contractor couldn't be a former LEO?

No. Wrong. Again. The worry is not that some people are racists and shouldn't hold certain jobs. The worry is that gun advocates response to massacres in schools is that a "responsible" person with a gun could have stopped it. I'm just saying that as long as people have a hard time distinguishing a movie from real-life then the last thing you should want is more people with guns in public places because it might actually increase the frequency of gun related incidents but on a smaller scale. It's like trading one potential tragedy for another.

Internet bigotry/racial tough talk/kneejerk reactions for shock factor and likes/favorites/whathaveyou on some social networking site, not to mention from immature kids and frat boys nonetheless is pretty hard for me, to form an educated opinion that would dissuade me from protecting schools with guns. The fact that someone bases their opinions of someones psychological situation off of their "tweets" worries me even more. And the key word in that entire paragraph is might. Might increase the frequency of gun related incidents. Yeah, it might, but I guarantee armed individuals guarding a school will mitigate the reprucussions of an aggressor with hostile intent entering the school. Trading one potential tragedy for another? So then whats the ultimate solution? I can see a thorough mental eval with an applicant submitting to a polygraph, background check, standard nine point drug panel and sufficient firearms safety training being enough to entrust them to reduce all of this for the time being.

[Perrone]

To stop a person that is using fists, you just have to know how to fight. To stop a person with a knife, you probably have to really know how to fight or have a bigger knife. To stop a person with a gun, you probably have to really really really...oh wait. You probably need a gun for that.

You don't need a knife to stop a person with a knife. Especially considering that it takes years to actually learn how to effectively fight with a knife, basic self-defense classes can teach you how to fight a person wielding a knife and some other melee weapons. If you really want to kill someone fast with a knife like what a person with a gun could do, you'd have to hit certain points on the human body, but a knife can be evaded and the hand wielding the knife can be blocked or even disarmed as you have to get up close... but it doesn't hurt to have a bigger knife on hand:P

As for the topic on hand, the fact is that America is a developed country with a third world gun death rate.

[Peaker]

Also Richards, what you fail to mention is that the Polytechnique was in 1989. 1 person died in the Dawson shooting. The total number of people that died in school shootings since 1989 is 8. Since the introduction of more stringent gun laws, the highest death toll in a school shooting was 4 (50% of all the school shooting related death in 24 years). We have had, during that same period, 6 school shootings (3 of which were not rampages, but personal altercations between students) compared to well...wikipedia had to create a separate page for the US, because it wouldn't fit in the main article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_schoo...ed_States#1990s

[Zorbanos 1st MRB]

I still think armed police officers, not private security guards, by one armed cop would deter alot of the school shootings that have gone down at US campuses. Colleges, maybe not, most colleges have their own PDs but you have to take them out of the equation because some colleges are as big or bigger than small towns.

These guy pick places intentionally where they know there is a lack of firearms, therefore few who would be able to stop them. The Aurora guy picked the one movie theatre is a several mile radiius that did not allow concealed firearms (which is why that shooting is so strange to me, as Colorado is one of the states that you can still wear a pistol on your hip in full view of the public)

[Parker 1st MRB]

Both sides made their points and the topic has been discussed thoroughly enough that I'm going to close the thread before tempers flare.

Topic closed.