Poll of the Day > California teacher accidentally shoots student

(+) Yeah! (+)

bulbinking posted...

Jen0125 posted...

i like the video of the cop at the elementary school doing a demonstration about gun safety and then he shot himself in his foot lmao

Its like people think one day we will be able to prevent all accidents from ever happening.

Are we wanting to take peoples property becauss I few have accidents or because a few misuse their property to jarm others?

Even still why do a few bad apples mean we have to burn down the whole orchard?

what does any of that have to do with my post that you quoted
---

Jen0125 posted...

bulbinking posted...

Jen0125 posted...

i like the video of the cop at the elementary school doing a demonstration about gun safety and then he shot himself in his foot lmao

Its like people think one day we will be able to prevent all accidents from ever happening.

Are we wanting to take peoples property becauss I few have accidents or because a few misuse their property to jarm others?

Even still why do a few bad apples mean we have to burn down the whole orchard?

what does any of that have to do with my post that you quoted

You were using this incident of a single idiot and implying the events that unfolded are the typical or expected situation, and thus why we ahouldnt allow teachers to have firearms.

Clearly a fallacious argument.
---

no i said i loved the video. have you seen the video? it was a hilarious video.
---

VioletZer0 posted...

This is straight up wrong. The government may tangentially control the resources, but the resources are directly in the hands of the people. And besides, the greatest resource of all is human capital. Of which the people have far more of than the government.

The People's advantage in manpower, even pretending they were unified (more on that in a moment) is vastly outdone by the government's advantages in organization, communication, military technology, money, and resources. A smaller, more organized and better-equipped group can easily defeat a larger, less-coherent mob, and that's basically the situation we have here.

VioletZer0 posted...

Second, you underestimate just how powerful the people really are if they decided to rebel against the government.

The government is only as strong as their ability to control the people. If the people rebel, they have no power. Tanks, warships, drones, etc are worthless without the capable hands to man them.

OK, let's ignore the government itself for a second and talk about the first part of your statement - how powerful the people are if they decide to rebel.

How many people do you think would rebel against the American government? I can tell you right now that number is a lot smaller than you think. If all liberals everywhere decided that Trump needed to be violently deposed (and, for some reason, they couldn't just wait until the next election to vote him out, which is a possibility you seem to be steadfastly ignoring), how many are actually going to step up and put their lives on the line by joining a militia? Perhaps more to the point, how many Trump supporters do you think would form counter-militias if they believed that their democratically-elected government was threatened by a bunch of violent usurpers?

And make no mistake, that's exactly what revolution is: a violent subversion of democratic process, and most people would acknowledge it as such in all but the most extreme of circumstances (circumstances which could never arise in any functional Western democracy for a variety of reasons). Even if the government used none of its own resources, the idea that you could mobilize half of the populace to arms and not face the other half rising up against you is laughable.

But then we come back to reality and remember that the military exists. Again, and I think this bears repeating, there has never been a successful anti-government revolution in the last 150 years that did not have the support or approval of the military. Not one. It is the military, not the people, that decides whether or not the government stays or goes in any revolution. If the military stands by the government, they will easily and brutally crush any resistance force, no matter how many shotguns they stockpiled in their basement, unless that resistance has managed to secure a foreign military patron. And if the military stands with the people, the people's militia becomes wholly unnecessary because of how much the military outguns them.

VioletZer0 posted...

And no you don't get to dictate what our side of the argument is. Making sure that the government never usurps the people is why we have guns to begin with, and that has not changed.

You're on the side of gun control? News to me.

I was explaining to you that no one advocates gun control as a solution to political corruption because we recognize that guns have no effect on political corruption.
---

Jen0125 posted...

no i said i loved the video. have you seen the video? it was a hilarious video.

Jen0125 posted...

https://www.cnn.com/2018/03/14/us/california-teacher-fires-gun/index.html

Lmao

give guns to the teachers!

Really now.
---

that's not what you quoted you fuckin dingus

you quoted a post about the police officer giving a demonstration to students in an elementary school who shot himself in the foot on accident. i said it was funny. he wasn't even a teacher.

learn to read.
---

Jen0125 posted...

that's not what you quoted you fuckin dingus

you quoted a post about the police officer giving a demonstration to students in an elementary school who shot himself in the foot on accident. i said it was funny. he wasn't even a teacher.

learn to read.

So you admit now your original posts conclusion was fallacious and misleading and bears no evidence for or against the argument of arming school teachers for student safety?
---

bro you're not talking about the correct post. learn to quote. if you wanna talk about the OP quote the OP not an unrelated post.
---

Jen is talking about a totally different video, dude. Catch up.
---

RCtheWSBC posted...

Jen is talking about a totally different video, dude. Catch up.

That is fine.

I am addresing the OP

Either she sees her stawman and admits venting steam about her dislike of the idea of teachers being armed, or she sticks by her humorous false conclusion and we see her as another lefty that uses feeling instead of logic when talking about their political opinions.

I havent seen her take back her assertion that 1 teacher being dumb means we cant trust the majority.

Isnt that the same logic chain we hate racists for? Using the actions of a few to judge the many?
---

bulbinking posted...

Isnt that the same logic chain we hate racists for? Using the actions of a few to judge the many?

We? "racists"? lmao what are you saying
---

bulbinking posted...

That is fine.

I am addresing the OP

if you were addressing the OP why did you quote the wrong post?
---

Jen0125 posted...

bulbinking posted...

That is fine.

I am addresing the OP

if you were addressing the OP why did you quote the wrong post?

Ill take your dodging of the question to assume you think the teacher shooting the ceiling by accident in an incident that wasnt properly sanctioned is evidence that no teacher can be trusted with firearms.
---

i'm not trying to engage with you because you don't even know how to use a message board
---

bulbinking posted...

Jen0125 posted...

bulbinking posted...

That is fine.

I am addresing the OP

if you were addressing the OP why did you quote the wrong post?

Ill take your dodging of the question to assume you think the teacher shooting the ceiling by accident in an incident that wasnt properly sanctioned is evidence that no teacher can be trusted with firearms.

she also dodged my raw unbiased poll results of the topic title being misleading because the poll was conducted on CE and therefore doesn't matter.
---

because who gives a shit about ce? why do you guys think you're important enough that people need to address all of your posts?
---

This would have never happened if we armed the janitors!
---

Jen0125 posted...

because who gives a shit about ce? why do you guys think you're important enough that people need to address all of your posts?

The fact that it's CE is literally irrelevant

It was an unbiased poll on an unbiased board who had no knowledge of my motivation behind creating the topic.

You're just in denial. Your topic title is deliberately misleading.
---

ce is a worse cesspool than potd

i don't care what they think about anything
---

Jen0125 posted...

ce is a worse cesspool than potd

i don't care what they think about anything

subjective viewpoint does nothing to invalidate the poll at hand
---

Here's the thing: EVERYONE wants guns removed from the world.

I know I do.

But that will never ever happen. Not in a million years, no matter what "gun control" is implemented.

The only question is: is the government more trustworthy with guns than citizens? You know, the same government that destabilized South America for profit. The same government that continues to wage war in the middle east for profit. The same government that routinely murders and imprisons PoC for profit.

Are they of all people more trustworthy with all of the guns than citizens are?

I love all of these countries that don't have to deal with the ethical implications of a heavily militarized government moralize over us because we're the ones who militarized for them. Places like Scandinavia aren't facing the threat of their own military bearing down on them specifically because they're under our own watchful eye.

I don't think there's any point in fighting with each other when almost everyone is for the background checks the NRA lobbies against.

At least enough people for it to really matter.

Money out of f'in politics. I think enough people are pissed off for something to happen about it soon enough. Every corrupt lobbied politician needs to go like a clearance sale. How fucking selfish do you have to be to sell millions of people out for a couple hundred grand?
---

There is a decent argument for gun control tho...

If guns are illegal, it creates a black market for guns that makes them much more easily accessible to everyone.

Just like what happened with the war on drugs.

However just like the war on drugs, it'll be used to oppress non-white communities so not the best idea.

Background checks aren't taking away your guns.

Keep the guns, ghetto people will continue shooting each other and terrifying neighborhoods at a terrifying rate on a daily basis. Sure. At least we have background checks.
---

Yellow posted...

Background checks aren't taking away your guns.

Background checks are giving the government the power to disarm citizens based on who they don't like. This is demonstrably racist.

VioletZer0 posted...

Yellow posted...

Background checks aren't taking away your guns.

Background checks are giving the government the power to disarm citizens based on who they don't like. This is demonstrably racist.

When you're capable of making that connection I don't even know what to say.

I really don't.

When you're in a corner just call the other guy racist! I don't even know.
---

Yellow posted...

When you're capable of making that connection I don't even know what to say.

I really don't.

When you're in a corner just call the other guy racist! I don't even know.

That's why gun control even started to begin with. It was to disarm PoC.

I'm not in a corner here, this is precisely why I believe background checks are wrong.

As long as most people overwhelmingly want background checks and Congress won't give us that because they're bought out, that's a problem past opinions.

Even if you don't agree, you have to agree that they should give us the decision, and based on that we should have background checks.
---

It's always going to be based on their criteria of who is a "Dangerous individual"

Remember, even "Convicted felon" are convictions based on the government's decision making.

VioletZer0 posted...

Here's the thing: EVERYONE wants guns removed from the world.

I know I do.

But that will never ever happen. Not in a million years, no matter what "gun control" is implemented.

Nirvana fallacy.

The objective isn't to completely remove guns - as you've said, for all intents and purposes that's impossible. The objective is to make it more difficult for criminals and would-be criminals to get their hands on them.

Will that completely eliminate gun crime? Of course not. But it will reduce it, and that's the end goal.

VioletZer0 posted...

The only question is: is the government more trustworthy with guns than citizens?

Pretty much unarguably yes. The government kills fewer people every year than the citizenry do.

VioletZer0 posted...

Places like Scandinavia aren't facing the threat of their own military bearing down on them specifically because they're under our own watchful eye.

Places like "Scandanavia" (which is a geographical region, not a country, and therefore does not have a military) aren't facing the threat of their own military bearing down on them because they're a functional Western democracy; the US has absolutely nothing to do with it.

What, you think the US just steps in and stops military juntas happening on foreign soil? That's a really odd opinion when earlier in your post you pointed out that the US loves to start those far more often than they stop them. To pick some recent examples, Egypt, Turkey, and Ukraine all had their governments deposed or attempted to be deposed by military force in the last decade and the US did next to nothing to intervene.

VioletZer0 posted...

If guns are illegal, it creates a black market for guns that makes them much more easily accessible to everyone.

Which explains why Japan, with arguably the strictest gun laws in the world, is awash in gun crime...

Oh, wait, no, the number of people killed by guns in Japan per year is in the single digits. If you want the country where guns are most easily accessible, that would be... let me just check here... oh, it's the USA, the only country in the world with more guns than people!

Surprise! Turns out that something that is illegal and almost completely uncontrolled is way easier to get a hold of than something that is subject to government restrictions or an outright ban.

VioletZer0 posted...

That's why gun control even started to begin with. It was to disarm PoC.

It's adorable that you think that the United States was the first (and apparently only) country to come up with the idea of gun control.
---

bulbinking posted...

Jen0125 posted...

bulbinking posted...

That is fine.

I am addresing the OP

if you were addressing the OP why did you quote the wrong post?

Ill take your dodging of the question to assume you think the teacher shooting the ceiling by accident in an incident that wasnt properly sanctioned is evidence that no teacher can be trusted with firearms.

That's a safe bet considering she has a brain and arming teachers is an absolutely fucking stupid idea.
---

darkknight109 posted...

Places like "Scandanavia" (which is a geographical region, not a country, and therefore does not have a military) aren't facing the threat of their own military bearing down on them because they're a functional Western democracy; the US has absolutely nothing to do with it.

Holy ****

I know you made a long post about this but this slayed me.

"Today we begins a new era! We will invade this country our mighty soldiers and tanks and take the land for our own!"

"Sir, our plan has been foiled!"

"What do you mean!?"

"They have....*gulp* a western democracy!"

"CALL IT OFF WE'VE BEEN DEFEATED"

I remember when Nazi germany was stopped in France because France had a western democracy.

darkknight109 posted...

Pretty much unarguably yes. The government kills fewer people every year than the citizenry do.

Holy crap

You are so naive

The government is just a cabal of people who want to maintain power and control for themselves. It is IT.

Just wait till your family was thrown into a camp like mine was.

VioletZer0 posted...

I remember when Nazi germany was stopped in France because France had a western democracy.

Is an armed populace supposed to protect itself from the government or Nazis.

Because in America it's inarguably failing to do either.
---

If you seriously think that you wouldn't know the horror of Nazis and Communists if it shot you in the face.

A bunch of sad depressed losers LARPing as Nazis is not a nazi takeover.

A bunch of sad depraved losers larping as America's last hope is equally is unthreatening.
---

VioletZer0 posted...

Holy ****

I know you made a long post about this but this slayed me.

"Today we begins a new era! We will invade this country our mighty soldiers and tanks and take the land for our own!"

Thank you for proving my point.

The threat you just described is an external military takeover, not an internal dictatorship. Which, really, is the only threat to a strong democratic country (and even then, not a pertinent one in today's day and age given that the democratic powers hold all the levers of control in the world, from military might to economic establishment). And here's the thing - civilian gun ownership doesn't do shit to protect you against an external military takeover, because if you think your Smith & Wesson is going to protect you against a tank or a jet or even just a squad of soldiers, you're delusional.

So since we're talking about military, let's take this hypothetical a step further. Let's say tomorrow every civilian-owned gun magically disappeared. Poof! Gone forever, can never come back.

So what military do you think is now going to invade the US and form a dictatorship?

Answer: None. Because even if no civilian owned a gun, the US still has the strongest military in the world and it's not even close. There is no power in the world that could fight the US and win.

There are two routes to power for a dictator - one is rising from inside a country (aka "The Hitler") and one is invading another country and taking power yourself or installing a puppet ruler (aka "The Other Hitler").

Developed countries are protected from the first by the institutional safeguards inherent in well-established democratic systems and from the second by military power (their own and their allies). Note that "civilian gun ownership" does not show up anywhere in that previous sentence, which should be plainly obvious because there are lots of stable, free democracies in the world where civilian gun ownership is heavily restricted or outright banned.

VioletZer0 posted...

Holy crap

You are so naive

The government is just a cabal of people who want to maintain power and control for themselves. It is IT.

Just wait till your family was thrown into a camp like mine was.

Man, I must have really triggered you to get a triple-post response. You know there's an edit button, right?

Anyways, you can keep fretting about your paranoid fantasies, but honestly I think the odds of me getting tossed in a re-education camp are pretty low, so I'll save my worry for more pressing concerns, like the risk of me getting hit by lightning while surfing on a shark.
---

darkknight109 posted...

Anyways, you can keep fretting about your paranoid fantasies, but honestly I think the odds of me getting tossed in a re-education camp are pretty low, so I'll save my worry for more pressing concerns, like the risk of me getting hit by lightning while surfing on a shark.

Still more likely to kill you than a completely random act of firearm violence.

Depending on your geography that is, and I doubt youd be here on potd if you lived in the ghetto.
---

bulbinking posted...

darkknight109 posted...

Anyways, you can keep fretting about your paranoid fantasies, but honestly I think the odds of me getting tossed in a re-education camp are pretty low, so I'll save my worry for more pressing concerns, like the risk of me getting hit by lightning while surfing on a shark.

Still more likely to kill you than a completely random act of firearm violence.

Depending on your geography that is, and I doubt youd be here on potd if you lived in the ghetto.

I live in a country with sensible firearms restrictions so yeah, my odds of being the victim to gun violence are reassuringly low.
---

darkknight109 posted...

bulbinking posted...

darkknight109 posted...

Anyways, you can keep fretting about your paranoid fantasies, but honestly I think the odds of me getting tossed in a re-education camp are pretty low, so I'll save my worry for more pressing concerns, like the risk of me getting hit by lightning while surfing on a shark.

Still more likely to kill you than a completely random act of firearm violence.

Depending on your geography that is, and I doubt youd be here on potd if you lived in the ghetto.

I live in a country with sensible firearms restrictions so yeah, my odds of being the victim to gun violence are reassuringly low.

Depending on what country you are more likely to be randomly mugged, pickpocketed, car stolen/broken into, home invasion, rape...

That stuff only happens in the ghettos of america. That sort of stuff happens in the streets of london from what im told!
---

bulbinking posted...

Depending on what country you are more likely to be randomly mugged, pickpocketed, car stolen/broken into, home invasion, rape...

Nope. Again, US tends to have higher levels of crime than most other developed nations (though typically not nearly as dramatically as the murder and gun crime rates).

http://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/profiles/United-States/Crime
http://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/stats/Crime/Crime-levels

bulbinking posted...

That stuff only happens in the ghettos of america. That sort of stuff happens in the streets of london from what im told!

You are incorrect. On both counts, actually.

Crime happens everywhere and you're delusional if you think it's confined to the ghettos of big cities. Poverty is an excellent indicator of crime and plenty of impoverished places in the US are outside the big cities (failed mining towns, industry towns where all the manufacturing jobs have disappeared, etc.)

As for London, there's a good breakdown here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_London#Crime_statistics

And here's the US by comparison

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_cities_by_crime_rate

The last murder rate on London's page - 1.1 per 100k - is lower than all but a handful of US cities. The robbery rate (440 per 100k) is comparable to that of Indianapolis. Assault rates are 700 per 100k - again, comparable to a mid-sized US city (pretty much the same as Wichita).
---

http://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/stats/Crime/Crime-levels

United States 55.84
United Kingdom 48
Australia 46.01

That's it? so UK and AUS has extreme gun control, and yet their crime rate is barely better than gun-capital USA. it almost seems like lack of gun control is not the CAUSE of crime.

Now let's see another angle.
Japan 12.8
Australia 46.01
Jamaica 73.33
Haiti 75
Venezuela 97.03

All these places with strict gun control, and yet their crime rates are all over the place. Hence, there is zero correlation between gun control and crime reduction.

Yet another angle.
Bahrain 17.86
Saudi Arabia 23.41
Switzerland 27.4
Norway 29.93
Serbia 32.25
Cyprus 33.93

These places have high guns per capita. Yet their crime rate is much lower than places with fewer guns per capita. So why are UK and AUS such failures to prevent crimes despite strict gun control? It almost seems like guns are not the CAUSE of crime.

About half of crime in US is done in just 5 specific metropolises, cities that have some of the strictest gun control in the nation, ironically. That means for 99% of the country, the crime rate is comparable to Switzerland and better than AUS or UK. That is, 99% American gun owners are already not performing crimes.

Ergo, no correlation nor promise that more gun restriction will reduce crime.
---

Amuseum posted...

http://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/stats/Crime/Crime-levels

Did you bother to read your own link? You might want to go back in, read the first paragraph and then decide if you want to leave your post up
---

Darth_CiD posted...

Amuseum posted...

http://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/stats/Crime/Crime-levels

Did you bother to read your own link? You might want to go back in, read the first paragraph and then decide if you want to leave your post up

This. I think you badly misconstrued the data on that page because it's not anything close to what you think it is.

I'm assuming you got that link from my earlier post - full disclosure, that actually wasn't the link I meant to post there, but it's too late for me to go back and edit it now.
---

darkknight109 posted...

bulbinking posted...

Depending on what country you are more likely to be randomly mugged, pickpocketed, car stolen/broken into, home invasion, rape...

Nope. Again, US tends to have higher levels of crime than most other developed nations (though typically not nearly as dramatically as the murder and gun crime rates).

http://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/profiles/United-States/Crime
http://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/stats/Crime/Crime-levels

bulbinking posted...

That stuff only happens in the ghettos of america. That sort of stuff happens in the streets of london from what im told!

You are incorrect. On both counts, actually.

Crime happens everywhere and you're delusional if you think it's confined to the ghettos of big cities. Poverty is an excellent indicator of crime and plenty of impoverished places in the US are outside the big cities (failed mining towns, industry towns where all the manufacturing jobs have disappeared, etc.)

As for London, there's a good breakdown here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_London#Crime_statistics

And here's the US by comparison

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_cities_by_crime_rate

The last murder rate on London's page - 1.1 per 100k - is lower than all but a handful of US cities. The robbery rate (440 per 100k) is comparable to that of Indianapolis. Assault rates are 700 per 100k - again, comparable to a mid-sized US city (pretty much the same as Wichita).

You are american, right? Outside of poor people places and minorities who feel oppressed (its usually just one or two groups who dont even have it the worst but are told they do as a political strategy by one particular group) I dont see any crimes happening.

Maybe there is something about city life not meant for the human psyche.

Even the rural poor are not nearly as biolent as the urbans.

Most crime in the U.S. is criminal on criminal. Our police have a live and let die attitude when they cant make money off an arrest, and who is going to risk their lives to be most likely labeled racist why cleaning up the crime spots of america?

Firearms ownedship per capita is on the decline iirc so shouldnt firearm violence be going down? I guess firearms have some magical mind control that makes people misuse them that im somehow immune to.
---

bulbinking posted...

You are american, right?

darkknight109 posted...

I live in a country with sensible firearms restrictions

Obviously not.
---

RCtheWSBC posted...

bulbinking posted...

You are american, right?

darkknight109 posted...

I live in a country with sensible firearms restrictions

Obviously not.

Okay then he clearly has no idea what he is talking about and should but out of a foreign countries culture.

You dont see americans going on eurocuck forums getting engaged in politics and foreign affairs.

Ill now know its safe to disregard his opinion. I bet hes never ever gotten to shoot guns. It must be like penis envy but firearms so hes sour grapes we can have something they cant.

If youd like we can import some of our troubled youth and guns or no your crime levels will reach the same levels (if its not burried for being unpc to report on it like your child sex gamgs from the middle east in europe and acid attacks on the street and beheading of police in public...

Oh yeah and getting randomly driven into on purpose)
---

bulbinking posted...

You dont see americans going on eurocuck forums getting engaged in politics and foreign affairs.

lmfao
---

I wish bulbinking were better at trolling because he puts so much effort into it.
---