RE: "Threats of violence in schools soar across U.S."

RE: "Threats of violence in schools soar across U.S." (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

Sinergy -> RE: "Threats of violence in schools soar across U.S." (4/24/2007 8:31:18 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: juliaoceania quote: ORIGINAL: Sinergy quote: ORIGINAL: domiguy Thank God for the violence in schools...It gives the kids something to distract them from fucking. Lord knows they need a distraction before benji starts killing them in the interest of recycling. Sinergy Is that some sort of Soylent Green reference? No, refers to another thread and a posting by gooddogbenji Sinergy

petdave -> RE: "Threats of violence in schools soar across U.S." (4/24/2007 8:49:15 PM)
Not surprising. It's final exam season.

Sicarius -> RE: "Threats of violence in schools soar across U.S." (4/24/2007 10:04:37 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sinergy The person in the car was not seeking cover, he was shooting back at the police officers out an open car window. You realize that shooting out of an open car window, which is vastly smaller than the profile of a human body, would still count as firing from 'cover,' I hope. Your assertion that he was not seeking cover would mean that he was standing up fully erect in perfectly plain sight on top of the roof of the vehicle waving his arms back and forth saying: "shoot me." quote: ORIGINAL: Sinergy The context in which I made that statement was about the fact that higher brain functions and small motor movements deteriorate under adrenalin stress. The closest officer was no more than 3 meters away. The furthest away was 10 meters. I don't care about the context of your comment, merely the inherent interpretation of events that transpired. The reality of the situation is that there were additional factors contributing to the situation that you are describing, first and foremost being the fact that the perpetrator was inside a vehicle that provided substantial protection to him on account of the fact that the vast majority of police officers are firing service pistols with 9mm slugs or hollwpoints that are designed for knockdown power rather than armor penetration. These rounds are built to delaminate and expend the entirety of their kinetic energy within several inches of human flesh, which is only slightly more dense than water. Imagine what their efficiency at going through steel is. quote: ORIGINAL: Sinergy Additionally, it is a single incident culled from the NYPD crime bureau. If the exception were as admissable as the consensus and the rule, debates would be a very interesting thing. I'm not sure if you're admitting that by pointing out that this is a single incident or not. Please clarify. quote: ORIGINAL: Sinergy I also made the point that our gun expert pointed out that 2 out of 72 was at or slightly below the average. You posted 15% or approximately 1 in 7. I cannot argue authoritatively either way; just sharing what I was told. And what I am telling you is that I am an expert with such knowledge and information. If you would like to pair me up with your expert to conduct a formal debate on the average accuracy rate of military and law enforcement personnel in a CQB environment as established by the past forty years of statistics and records, I would be more than happy to do so. Now that I also think about this comment in retrospect, I want to ask you something point-blank: is your gun expert claiming that 2 out of 72 shots (1 hit out of 36) is average, or is your gun expert claiming that 1 out of 36 *fired by ten officers* for an average of 1 in 3.6 is average? Either way the problem I have with this particular scenario is that I don't necessarily believe that all ten officers should have immediately begun blasting off rounds, but I am not intimately familiar with the situation that you're referring to. If you are able to cite or reference the specific incident, I would be very appreciative of that from the standpoint of analyzing what happened. quote: ORIGINAL: Sinergy My self-defense expertise is limited, as far as handguns (or knives) are concerned, with how to fight somebody who has one when you dont. Please dont respond that only an idiot goes unarmed to a gunfight, sometimes people dont have the luxury to be armed or able to get their gun out before somebody has the drop on them. I teach how to deal with that situation, not the morality or other issues behind whether to go around armed or not. I don't believe that you're an idiot for that. There are plenty of ways to defend yourself while unarmed or less-armed against a perpetrator who has a weapon superior to your own, including a firearm. The reality of the situation, however, is that a firearm vastly slants the playing field in favor of the individual who is carrying it. While it may be possible to disarm a gunman with your bare hands or a melee implement of some variety, you must be exceedingly cautious in your attempt to do so. Furthermore, I would never attempt such a thing unless I very clearly had a psychological or tactical advantage in my favor, such as diminished access or the utilization of tactical angles in an urban environment. -Sicarius

domiguy -> RE: "Threats of violence in schools soar across U.S." (4/24/2007 10:12:42 PM)
quote: Sicarius Furthermore, I would never attempt such a thing unless I very clearly had a psychological or tactical advantage in my favor, such as diminished access or the utilization of tactical angles in an urban environment. Whenever disarming a gunman in an urban environment....I choose to approach the gunman hidden behind a crack ho.

Sicarius -> RE: "Threats of violence in schools soar across U.S." (4/24/2007 10:24:36 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: domiguy Whenever disarming a gunman in an urban environment....I choose to approach the gunman hidden behind a crack ho. I'm not sure what sort of ballistic defense a crack ho provides in a gunfight. I guess they might provide a psychological advantage, though. -Sicarius

justheather -> RE: "Threats of violence in schools soar across U.S." (4/25/2007 4:36:46 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sanity quote: ORIGINAL: justheather Um. Im sorry, but I fail to see how Jesus' current location has anything to do with this person's actions. I went to a catholic school in the 70s. We had bomb threats at least once a year. Usually it was in the Spring when the weather was nice, so we didnt really mind so much. We had no idea, as kids, all the resources spent sniffing out a fake bomb. The buzz on the street was that it was the high schoolers who had attended our school who did it...they always seemed to have the day off and and just happen to strole by at the same time we were lining up outside. Anyway, my point is that Jesus was most definitely in the building. Why do people assume that Jesus Christ is the center of all morality in the world? Plenty of people who aren't Christians play well with others, share their crayons and don't make bomb threats. And plenty of people who profess to "know the Lord" light crosses on fire, bomb buildings and much much worse. Um. The point is that there is no basis for morality anymore, um because um religion is gone. Um. Without it people have no um need to give a flying rat's ass what they um do . Um. Some do give that um flying rats ass, but um they feel no real um need to. Um. WHY give that um flying rats ass? Um. You can't um answer that, because um there isn't a reason. Um. THAT'S the um point. Um. [Mod Note: font reduced] Im sure when Jesus read this response he was very proud.

Sanity -> RE: "Threats of violence in schools soar across U.S." (4/25/2007 5:22:10 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: justheather Im sure when Jesus read this response he was very proud. Um Jesus died thousands of years ago

juliaoceania -> RE: "Threats of violence in schools soar across U.S." (4/25/2007 9:00:18 AM)
quote: Um. The point is that there is no basis for morality anymore, um because um religion is gone. Um. Without it people have no um need to give a flying rat's ass what they um do . Um. Some do give that um flying rats ass, but um they feel no real um need to. Um. WHY give that um flying rats ass? Um. You can't um answer that, because um there isn't a reason. Um. THAT'S the um point. Um. Funny, I have no religious affiliation, was raised by parents that never went to church, and I never got into trouble at my school and received high citizenship marks. My UM received high marks in citizenship without a religion. His friends, none of whom are religious are not trouble makers... so I am guessing your theory that people have to have some sort of religious base or they will become uncaring about others around them is wrong. There are religious people that commit heinous acts, and there are people that are not religious that do. In fact you will find a high percentage of "born agains" on death row, so by your logic I suppose we should free them all because they are "saved" and therefore not a threat to anyone. Equating religion with propensity for morals is silly, because by the morals that you support, you're going to hell for just having a profile on this site dude. That is not the message I want my UM getting in school.

FirmhandKY -> RE: "Threats of violence in schools soar across U.S." (4/25/2007 11:59:30 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: juliaoceania Equating religion with propensity for morals is silly, because by the morals that you support, you're going to hell for just having a profile on this site dude. That is not the message I want my UM getting in school. uh ... what is this statement based on? FirmKY

juliaoceania -> RE: "Threats of violence in schools soar across U.S." (4/25/2007 12:02:27 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY quote: ORIGINAL: juliaoceania Equating religion with propensity for morals is silly, because by the morals that you support, you're going to hell for just having a profile on this site dude. That is not the message I want my UM getting in school. uh ... what is this statement based on? FirmKY mainstream Christian values as one would find on the religious right that are the strongest lobby for religion in the schools. If one is supportive of that agenda, they are supporting that viewpoint in its totality in my opinion. The last I checked, I am allowed to have one[:D]

FirmhandKY -> RE: "Threats of violence in schools soar across U.S." (4/25/2007 12:07:29 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: juliaoceania quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY quote: ORIGINAL: juliaoceania Equating religion with propensity for morals is silly, because by the morals that you support, you're going to hell for just having a profile on this site dude. That is not the message I want my UM getting in school. uh ... what is this statement based on? FirmKY mainstream Christian values as one would find on the religious right that are the strongest lobby for religion in the schools. If one is supportive of that agenda, they are supporting that viewpoint in its totality in my opinion. The last I checked, I am allowed to have one[:D] No problem with you having an opinion. I'm not sure you even came close to addressing my question, though. Here is a statement you made: because by the morals that you support, you're going to hell for just having a profile on this site dude My question is ... what evidence do you have that supports this? Why do you believe that just because someone supports Christianity, that they should then believe that having a profile on this site will ensure that they "go to hell"? FirmKY

juliaoceania -> RE: "Threats of violence in schools soar across U.S." (4/25/2007 12:37:47 PM)
Perhaps it is my wording that has you confused, I already clarified it, my opinion is that anyone who supports the religious right's contention that we need religion in our schools also supports the agenda that premarital sex is wrong, associating with "sexual deviants" is a sin, being anything that is not according to their interpretation of the Bible means you are going to Hell, IN MY OPINION . I understand that some Christians do not feel this way, but the Religious Right (you know, those people trying to get religion back into government, politics, American cultural life and our schools), well they DO believe in a Hell, and they think we are all going there

Sanity -> RE: "Threats of violence in schools soar across U.S." (4/25/2007 1:20:51 PM)
Still, you fail to address my main point, which is that there is no reason to be moral, really. You can brag about your citizenship marks all day and you can rail against born-agains on death row all you want, but that has nothing to do with what I said. Which is, there is no reason for morals without God. Feel free to disagree, but say specifically why a person should be moral if in the end we, if everything is all just space debris.

juliaoceania -> RE: "Threats of violence in schools soar across U.S." (4/25/2007 1:37:53 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sanity Still, you fail to address my main point, which is that there is no reason to be moral, really. You can brag about your citizenship marks all day and you can rail against born-agains on death row all you want, but that has nothing to do with what I said. Which is, there is no reason for morals without God. Feel free to disagree, but say specifically why a person should be moral if in the end we, if everything is all just space debris. you fail to illustrate why a person would not be moral without religion,.... what does being immoral get you? You know, a good researcher in the social sciences that addresses these questions is Durkheim, he presented a fairly good case that people behave in society because of the cohesive aspects. In other words, if you do not do what society thinks is right, you will be shunned or killed... these are far better reasons to behave yourself than because an invisible god said to... the God has no power over you, but other people do.

Sanity -> RE: "Threats of violence in schools soar across U.S." (4/25/2007 3:35:08 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: juliaoceania you fail to illustrate why a person would not be moral without religion,.... Do I really fail to illustrate that, julia? Or are you incapable of understanding. For the fourth or fifth time now, there is no reason to be moral. None. That is why "a person would not be moral without religion." quote: what does being immoral get you? Oh, I don't know. Try thirty-two classmates dead, because you were shunned perhaps? Or just pick up a newspaper and read about all the things immorality gets people, or what they think it will get them, because I really don't have the time to list all of them OR to teach you what common sense would normally tell you, like the fact that people aren't being moral out there (like your esteemed college professors preach). quote: You know, a good researcher in the social sciences that addresses these questions is Durkheim, he presented a fairly good case that people behave in society because of the cohesive aspects. In other words, if you do not do what society thinks is right, you will be shunned or killed... these are far better reasons to behave yourself than because an invisible god said to... the God has no power over you, but other people do. And what if you think you can get away with something? Think Scott Peterson, or Joseph Stalin, etc.

juliaoceania -> RE: "Threats of violence in schools soar across U.S." (4/25/2007 3:52:14 PM)
Ted Bundy claims to have been a Christian... and there have been countless people tortured in the name of religion...

justheather -> RE: "Threats of violence in schools soar across U.S." (4/25/2007 3:56:31 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sanity And what if you think you can get away with something? Think Scott Peterson, or Joseph Stalin, etc. It troubles me that there are people who actually believe that the only thing that keeps human beings from torturing and murdering one another is the fear of being caught by man or deity. I happen to believe that the world view a person expresses says an awful lot more about the person than it does the world. This post explains a lot about your position. I get it now.

Sanity -> RE: "Threats of violence in schools soar across U.S." (4/25/2007 4:03:47 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: juliaoceania Ted Bundy claims to have been a Christian... and there have been countless people tortured in the name of religion... That's a new thread, really. Completely unrelated to what I said in any way. You're just so anti-Christian that you're attacking me for what Ted Bundy did out of your knee-jerkiness. Again, I am not espousing religion, and I'm not religious myself. I am just stating a fact, there is no reason to be moral. No God is watching, you can get away with it! Do it! Right? If you can outsmart the cops, society won't care about what they don't know. Nothing matters in the end...

Sanity -> RE: "Threats of violence in schools soar across U.S." (4/25/2007 4:08:09 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: justheather quote: ORIGINAL: Sanity And what if you think you can get away with something? Think Scott Peterson, or Joseph Stalin, etc. It troubles me that there are people who actually believe that the only thing that keeps human beings from torturing and murdering one another is the fear of being caught by man or deity. I happen to believe that the world view a person expresses says an awful lot more about the person than it does the world. This post explains a lot about your position. I get it now. Yeah, I know. You don't like the message, so you attack the messenger... pfft. Whatever. The bottom line is, Libs have gotten things their way, Jesus has left the building, and now society going to pay the price. Things will get progressively wore and worse from here - I guarantee it. While I'm no Jesus freak, it's easy to see what's happening. Kids have no morals these days, and each generation gets worse from here. It's been going on for a while now, and it's just obvious.

justheather -> RE: "Threats of violence in schools soar across U.S." (4/25/2007 4:15:11 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sanity quote: ORIGINAL: justheather quote: ORIGINAL: Sanity And what if you think you can get away with something? Think Scott Peterson, or Joseph Stalin, etc. It troubles me that there are people who actually believe that the only thing that keeps human beings from torturing and murdering one another is the fear of being caught by man or deity. I happen to believe that the world view a person expresses says an awful lot more about the person than it does the world. This post explains a lot about your position. I get it now. Yeah, I know. You don't like the message, so you attack the messenger... pfft. Whatever. If only it were that simple. I have no reason to attack you. Your world view is scary to me. That's not an attack, that's an opinion. You have asserted your opinion without offering any objective or logical reasoning to back it up, yet when you have been questioned about this, you make the same statement over and over again, still offering no reasoning for the stance other than the fact that you believe that people will do whatever they can get away with if they arent being watched. The fact that I find this world view troubling is exactly what it is, my response to your world view. Nice try with the "attacking the messenger" thing, but you still have failed to support your claim with anything other than the restatement of your position and some nasty comments about other posters. That leaves us pretty much with the conclusion that you believe this to be true about other people because it is true of you. Which is a really sad way to be.

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3] 4 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875