School Obama's Daughters Attend Has 11 Armed Guards

reply to post by Indigo5


The President's family has the entire secret service. As was stated a few times, this school is not just for his kids.

Originally posted by Indigo5

Originally posted by NavyDoc
My problem comes when they have armed guards for thier own families but want to ban the tools I use to protect mine.

You need a semi-automatic, high-velocity AR-15 assualt rifle with a high capacity magazine capable of killing 20 children and 8 adults in less than 4 minutes...to protect yourself from a junkie? How crappy of a shot are you? Or are your children at risk of a Zombie Apocolypse?

First off, you threw in high-velocity after the already pointless semi-automatic.

Second, he did not say he uses an AR-15 for home defense.

Third, I don't see a problem with people owning AR's.


In Detroit, there was a home invasion spree where the criminals were dressing up like cops and "raiding" houses then robbing and raping even old ladys. Well, one day they got caught of guard when two people with AKs hit a couple of them.

I vote we keep assault rifles in the hands of homeowners. They already micro chip dogs, why not AR's?

Originally posted by Indigo5

Originally posted by NavyDoc
Yes, simple logic. Their children are not any more valuable than mine.

Valuable?...as in their value as human beings? Absolutely correct. 110%

As a "valuable" target for International Terroists or a crazy magnet for every whacko that wants a place in the history books...WRONG.

And no offense...but any argument that begins by denying that reality is retarded. You want to make a case...begin by acknowledging reality first.

If you believe that all of our children equally warrants a security detail, and that seems practical and you want to see it implemented, then go for it.

And if you have an occupation that puts your children at risk, then I would speak with your employer and the police...while at the same time understanding the number of children that are killed or abducted by entirely random circumstances.

The EITHER or OR fallacy...the binary fallacy...the claim that all of our kids are at EQUAL risk as the Presidents...fails outright.

How many race car drivers died this year in auto accidents?
How many non-race car drivers died in auto-accidents this year?

Why don't we all wear helmets and harnesses and have roll bars!!!

Or we can THINK....How many race car drivers are there? How many non-race car drivers? Are the risks equal? How many President's daughters are there? Does being the Daughter of the Commander and Chief of the US War on terror elevate the risk of murder or abduction??

NAAA...Who wants to THINK!!! Lets just keep up the retarded logic.

Not "retarded" at all, but quite logical and reasonable. By your own logic, if the President does not want his kids to be at risk, he shouldn't take the job, yes?

I've never said that the President nor his children should not have a security detail. What I have pointed out is the obvious hypocrisy of someone surrounded with armed guards supporting gun bans for other people.

Originally posted by Indigo5

Originally posted by NavyDoc
My problem comes when they have armed guards for thier own families but want to ban the tools I use to protect mine.

You need a semi-automatic, high-velocity AR-15 assualt rifle with a high capacity magazine capable of killing 20 children and 8 adults in less than 4 minutes...to protect yourself from a junkie? How crappy of a shot are you? Or are your children at risk of a Zombie Apocolypse?

LOL. Love the scary buzz words. "Smei-auto" "high velocity" "high capacity." My bolt action hunting rifle is higher velocity than my AR. My WWII collectible M-1 Garand that I inherited from my father is semi-auto. The AR was designed with 20 and 30 rnd magazines so those are normal capacity.

I'm an excellent shot. Tools fit the potential problem. I have many fire extinguishers even though I have never had a single fire in my house. An AR-15 is great for home and community defense during times of natural disasters (Katrina anyone?) and civil unrest (LA riots ring a bell?)

Do you find it necessary to personally insult people all of the time or do you just do it when you lack a logical and reasoned argument?

Originally posted by NarrowGate

Originally posted by Indigo5

Originally posted by NavyDoc
My problem comes when they have armed guards for thier own families but want to ban the tools I use to protect mine.

You need a semi-automatic, high-velocity AR-15 assualt rifle with a high capacity magazine capable of killing 20 children and 8 adults in less than 4 minutes...to protect yourself from a junkie? How crappy of a shot are you? Or are your children at risk of a Zombie Apocolypse?

First off, you threw in high-velocity after the already pointless semi-automatic.

First off..."High-Velocity" refers to FPS...bullet speed and force. "Semi-Automatic" refers to the ability to fire multiple rounds without reloading as quickly as you can squeeze the trigger. Two different things?

Hmmm...Do you own a gun? I do.

Originally posted by NarrowGate
Second, he did not say he uses an AR-15 for home defense.

Then I question the relevance? The 2nd Amendment is not in danger and even an AWB will be a long climb. The AR-15 and other weapons of choice in mass shootings are what the public is debating.

Originally posted by NarrowGate
Third, I don't see a problem with people owning AR's.

In Detroit, there was a home invasion spree where the criminals were dressing up like cops and "raiding" houses then robbing and raping even old ladys. Well, one day they got caught of guard when two people with AKs hit a couple of them.

I vote we keep assault rifles in the hands of homeowners. They already micro chip dogs, why not AR's?

I tried to google up your story on a home invasion being foiled by AK-47's? Please provide a link, lest I make the mistake of thinking it is gun-fanatic-fantasy BS?

Originally posted by NavyDoc

I've never said that the President nor his children should not have a security detail.

Great...glad to have a "thinking" debate then.

Originally posted by NavyDoc
What I have pointed out is the obvious hypocrisy of someone surrounded with armed guards supporting gun bans for other people.

He also has the Nuclear "football"...is it hypocritical that he also supports banning public access to Nuclear weapons?

Extreme example?...Hmm..OK, How about RPG launchers? Hand held anti-aircraft weapons?

The NRA is not proposing that every citizen have access to Nuclear Weapons...and the anti-gun lobby is not proposing we ban kitchen knives and large rocks.

But both should agree that there is a spectrum of death toll numbers associated with those weapons in a madmans hands.

AND somewhere on that spectrum falls the AR-15, AK-47, M-16 etc.

Where do we draw that line? Not rehtorical...I want your honest answer...what weapons do you think should be banned? And why?

Originally posted by NavyDoc

LOL. Love the scary buzz words. "Smei-auto" "high velocity" "high capacity." My bolt action hunting rifle is higher velocity than my AR. My WWII collectible M-1 Garand that I inherited from my father is semi-auto. The AR was designed with 20 and 30 rnd magazines so those are normal capacity.

Those words scare you? I didn't consider them "buzz words" but actual technical specifications relevant to the AR-15 and it's capabilities.

I would expect your bolt-action hunting rifle to be a higher velocity than your AR, still...by normal standards you would be stretching the truth to argue that the AR is NOT high velocity...it is even marketed as high velocity.

But more to the point...your hunting rifle is bolt action...Semi-Auto not required for deer hunting.

The AR also comes standard with 30 round clip, but you can get 60 round clips and even higher, though the risk of a jam increases significantly the higher you go.

You had to list several guns to sum up the qualities of the AR-15....Why?..It is the combination of those qualities that make the AR-15 the weapon of choice for killing large numbers of people in a short span of time. Barrel length, weight etc. even play into it.

Is this where you pretend I am not right? Are you willing to feign ignorance about guns?

Originally posted by Indigo5

Originally posted by NavyDoc

LOL. Love the scary buzz words. "Smei-auto" "high velocity" "high capacity." My bolt action hunting rifle is higher velocity than my AR. My WWII collectible M-1 Garand that I inherited from my father is semi-auto. The AR was designed with 20 and 30 rnd magazines so those are normal capacity.

Those words scare you? I didn't consider them "buzz words" but actual technical specifications relevant to the AR-15 and it's capabilities.

I would expect your bolt-action hunting rifle to be a higher velocity than your AR, still...by normal standards you would be stretching the truth to argue that the AR is NOT high velocity...it is even marketed as high velocity.

But more to the point...your hunting rifle is bolt action...Semi-Auto not required for deer hunting.

The AR also comes standard with 30 round clip, but you can get 60 round clips and even higher, though the risk of a jam increases significantly the higher you go.

You had to list several guns to sum up the qualities of the AR-15....Why?..It is the combination of those qualities that make the AR-15 the weapon of choice for killing large numbers of people in a short span of time. Barrel length, weight etc. even play into it.

Is this where you pretend I am not right? Are you willing to feign ignorance about guns?

Words don't scare me, those are the words that people with an agenda use to scare the uninformed. They are neither "technical" nor "specifications" particular to that rifle.

"High velocity" is not a technical specification of the AR-15. "High velocity" compared to what? I bet that, right now, without googling, you don't even know what the velocity of the round is. You hear it and then repeat it. The .223 remington/5.56 NATO is a cartrige used in a variety of firearms: bolt action, semi auto, full auto, and single shot. There is nothing unique or particularily dangerous about the round used in the AR-15 compared to many other rifles and rounds. In fact, it is actually underpowered for many game.

Semi autos are used for hunting all of the time. The ability to do a quick follow up shot reduces the chances of a wounded animal not fully put down, but you divert anyway because the right to keep an bear arms really isn't about hunting.

Since we are being "technical." They are not "clips" but "magazines." Most people who do not know what they are talking about don't know the difference.

Ignorance about guns? The only ignorance I have seen so far has come from you.

reply to post by PvtHudson


How did you get that out of what I said?

I never stated it was dangerous or stupid to have armed guards, I'm actually all for it. You live in a nation of gun totting folk. You all OPENLY encourage the use of firearms.

Why not have armed guards when the population can't seem to keep track of who can get a gun and who can't?

The system of gun ownership is broken, and here we have the results of that.

Regardless, it's none of our business what a private school chooses to do with it's money. It's also none of our business where political figures and others who have the money to send their kids to these schools either.

We just cry hypocracy whenenver it's in the public. It's actually LUDICROUS to use tax payer money to fund armed gards at public schools, that I agree, not because it's not 'safer' but because financially that isn't sustainable and the treat honestly isn't that large.

Maybe in specific schools with high violence or something, but otherwise, that's just stupid.

~Tenth

Originally posted by Indigo5

Originally posted by NavyDoc

I've never said that the President nor his children should not have a security detail.

Great...glad to have a "thinking" debate then.

Originally posted by NavyDoc
What I have pointed out is the obvious hypocrisy of someone surrounded with armed guards supporting gun bans for other people.

He also has the Nuclear "football"...is it hypocritical that he also supports banning public access to Nuclear weapons?

Extreme example?...Hmm..OK, How about RPG launchers? Hand held anti-aircraft weapons?

The NRA is not proposing that every citizen have access to Nuclear Weapons...and the anti-gun lobby is not proposing we ban kitchen knives and large rocks.

But both should agree that there is a spectrum of death toll numbers associated with those weapons in a madmans hands.

AND somewhere on that spectrum falls the AR-15, AK-47, M-16 etc.

Where do we draw that line? Not rehtorical...I want your honest answer...what weapons do you think should be banned? And why?

Actually, semi auto weapons are not used nearly as often as those who want them banned are purporting. In 2010, there were 10,688 DUI fatalities and a higher number of injuries.

Should we blame the driver, or the car? What about cars with automatic transmissions? What about high capacity vehicles?

reply to post by GeisterFahrer


What you said. In addition, long arms of all types (from Ar-15s to bolt action hunting rifles) accounted for only 300 of hte 9K firearms related deaths. They simply are not the pants-wetting public danger that people make them out to be.

Originally posted by NavyDoc
reply to post by GeisterFahrer

 

What you said. In addition, long arms of all types (from Ar-15s to bolt action hunting rifles) accounted for only 300 of hte 9K firearms related deaths. They simply are not the pants-wetting public danger that people make them out to be.

And about 1500 firearm related murders where the weapon was not specified.
www.fbi.gov...

But more to the point...while handguns might be the most common weapon of choice for murder, in MASS SHOOTINGS, the Assault Rifle is indisputably the weapon of choice...

July 20, 2012 James Holmes, Aurora Colorado "Batman" shooter..., 12 dead, 58 wounded, AR-15 (S&W M&P Rifle)
Dec. 14, 2012 Adam Lanza, Sandyhook, 28 dead, AR-15
March 10, 2009 AL Michael Kenneth McLendon, using a Soviet-made SKS, a Bushmaster AR-15 10 Dead, 2 Children
The Port Arthur Massactre in Australia, 1996, 35 Dead, 23 wounded...AR-10

Originally posted by NavyDoc

"High velocity" is not a technical specification of the AR-15. "High velocity" compared to what? I bet that, right now, without googling, you don't even know what the velocity of the round is.

Silly rabbit...I posted it over a week ago...Wrong on both fronts.

Bushmaster AR-15 used by Adam Lanza
Rapid fire Semi-Automatic
Ammunition: .223 Remington; 55 grain bullet @ 3240 feet per second.
Muzzle Energy: 1282 foot-pounds.
Capacity: Standard 30 round magazine, 60 or 100 Round clips available, but with a greater likelihood of jamming the higher you go.
post by Indigo5

Originally posted by tothetenthpower

The system of gun ownership is broken, and here we have the results of that.

~Tenth

I would not call it broken, but it needs some tuning. Someone who is basically suicidal crazy, but has had no insitances that would lead anything to that conclusion is one tough nut to crack in preventing them access to guns.

Though I would like to see something in place that a person is required to show proof of security of their weapons to own them..i.e. a safe, I find all this just the flavor of the week....

We could just as easily debate speed limits are too high (40k deaths), too many people are poisoned each year (40k) so the system is broken, we have a problem with overdosing deaths of legal drugs (16k) so this system is broken too, and so on, to total the close to 3 million that just seem to die to something every year.

Originally posted by Indigo5
But more to the point...while handguns might be the most common weapon of choice for murder, in MASS SHOOTINGS, the Assault Rifle is indisputably the weapon of choice...

July 20, 2012 James Holmes, Aurora Colorado "Batman" shooter..., 12 dead, 58 wounded, AR-15 (S&W M&P Rifle)
Dec. 14, 2012 Adam Lanza, Sandyhook, 28 dead, AR-15
March 10, 2009 AL Michael Kenneth McLendon, using a Soviet-made SKS, a Bushmaster AR-15 10 Dead, 2 Children
The Port Arthur Massactre in Australia, 1996, 35 Dead, 23 wounded...AR-10

So do you think ARs should be banned because of their capabilites? I guess the main question would be why? Do you think the murder rate by guns would drasticly go down, or lets say droped by 50% from 10,000 to 5,000, but then the non-gun murders would most likely go up since the motive for killing is not the gun itself.

Now since AR actually kill less than 500 people per year I kind of find it a hard sell to suggest anything would change at all, well other than one more step towards a nanny state....

Originally posted by Xtrozero


So do you think ARs should be banned because of their capabilites? I guess the main question would be why? Do you think the murder rate by guns would drasticly go down, or lets say droped by 50% from 10,000 to 5,000, but then the non-gun murders would most likely go up since the motive for killing is not the gun itself.

That argument doesn't make much sense. The point of a gun is to efficiently kill or injure someone from a distance. Stabbing someone for instance would be far more personal and require the offender to actually get his or her hands dirty and risk picking a fight they may not win. Guns are impersonal and allow people a level of detachment from the act.

You assume the gun would not be the motive yet US media like movies and video games do glorify mass murderers.. even when the charactor is the "bad guy" they are still celebrated.. so how can you be sure that someone is not just recreating scenes from their favourite flicks?

I believe the murder rate would go down as to kill someone in close proximity requires alot more emotional investment than killing them from a distance. They also risk their prey kicking their arse and showing them that they are not all that tough without a gun.

Originally posted by riley

You assume the gun would not be the motive yet US media like movies and video games do glorify mass murderers.. even when the charactor is the "bad guy" they are still celebrated.. so how can you be sure that someone is not just recreating scenes from their favourite flicks?

I believe the murder rate would go down as to kill someone in close proximity requires alot more emotional investment than killing them from a distance. They also risk the person kicking their arse and showing them that they are not all that tough without a gun.

Rifles kill less than 500 people per year, that is ARs, hunting rifles, 22 rifles etc all combine. So my question is whether you think banning AR (which is a popular hunting gun too) will really effect anything at all since we are talking less than 500 people anyways.

By contrast shotguns kill 800 people pre year and we are not talking about banning them.

reply to post by Xtrozero


What of your claim that I actually focused on which was:

but then the non-gun murders would most likely go up since the motive for killing is not the gun itself.

You seemed to have compeletly ignored the main point of my post.

reply to post by Indigo5


Ahh screw it. I blame the propaganda machine (news stations).

No I will not link look it up if you want. BTW the other story, wtf do you think you can google? People are shot with AK variants like all the dang time in the D. As far as any gun goes - every single day at least once and that's just what is reported. That's just one city.

What the gun grabbing politicians are promoting (ever since RIGHT after the tragedy - but blame the NRA for having "no excuse") (AKA respect).

Allow me to translate

"The ability for him to fire off multiple shots in rapid succession from his semi-automatic high-velocity military style assault rifle can not be ignored".
^^^ LET ME TRANSLATE.

"The ability for him to pull a trigger more than once from a run-of-the-mill relatively low caliber rifle that jams alot can not be ignored"

or in real terms

"The ability for him to enter a school with a long weapon and fire off multiple shots without someone shooting him first can not be ignored".

This conversation became far less interesting when it became another gun debate. Can anyone get statistics on how many private schools have guards, and how many don't? And the violence reported between the two? I'm on my phone while i wait for my new internet to get installed or I would