Sign up for a free recipe e-book →

Clarissa's Blog

If Gasoline Is Freely Available, Why Control Gun Ownership?

Published by

Clarissa

on

January 23, 2013

The issue of gun control is bringing out extreme childishness in many people. See, for instance, the following comment:

Also – we treat guns as if they are somehow mystically imbued, instead of inanimate objects. Sorry, but no. Given the ready availability of gasoline and and other accelerants that can be combined to form explosives, or simply burn down buildings wholesale for a few dollars, they are, dollar for dollar, NOT the worst people can come up with for wholesale slaughter.

It is both sad and scary that people who have zero understanding of how the human psyche works would experience the need to pontificate on serious subjects. The above-quoted comment is so ignorant and immature that I feel vicarious shame for the poor individual who made it.

Arsonists and shooters are completely different people, motivated by completely different things. This is why shooting and arson are not interchangeable activities. An arsonist does not turn into shooter and vice versa out of convenience. A person who sets a residential building on fire and a person who shoots into a crowd both have extreme psycho-sexual issues. These are, however, different issues that do not overlap. For a perpetrator, these are not interchangeable activities.

Jeez, folks, let’s grow up already and start educating ourselves.

Rate this:

98 responses to “If Gasoline Is Freely Available, Why Control Gun Ownership?”

cliff arroyo

January 23, 2013

The question is what do you mean by ‘control’. I have nothing against reasonable precautions on legal gun ownership (and greatly heightened legal sanctions for non-legal ownership) but I can’t get behind anything beyond reasonable precautions (the definition of which remains open for negotiation).

But the point is that the problem isn’t guns in the hands of law abiding responsible people.The constitution says what it says and short of changing that I’m not into gun bans or “gun free” zones (a wonderful if tragic example of ‘magic thinking’). If you do want to change the constitution go ahead and be clear that’s what you want.

LikeLike

Reply
1. bloggerclarissa
  
  January 23, 2013
  
  The comment is part of the argument “if teachers have free access to gasoline, why shouldn’t they carry gun on campus”?
  
  “If you do want to change the constitution go ahead and be clear that’s what you want.”
  
  – There is nothing in the constitution about obligating teachers to arm themselves in schools. That is the only thing we are discussing here.
  
  LikeLike
  
  Reply
  1. Stille (@aperfectbalance)
    
    January 23, 2013
    
    I don’t think anyone proposed obligating teachers to arm themselves. What I have seen is people (both in this blog’s comment threads and in the greater Interwebs) suggest allowing teachers that choose to arm themselves off campus be allowed to do so on campus too.
    
    LikeLike
    
    Reply
    1. bloggerclarissa
      
      January 23, 2013
      
      “I don’t think anyone proposed obligating teachers to arm themselves. ”
      
      – You are not following the debate very closely, either on or outside of this blog. Just today, two people said that teachers who don’t want to handle weapons are flakes and losers. Right here, on this blog.
      
      “What I have seen is people (both in this blog’s comment threads and in the greater Interwebs) suggest allowing teachers that choose to arm themselves off campus be allowed to do so on campus too.”
      
      – And that is an insane idea proposed by people with severe psychosexual issues. This has started going in circles.
      
      LikeLike
      
      Reply
  2. Titfortat
    
    January 23, 2013
    
    @Clarissa
    
    Whats with your psychosexual diagnosises? Do you need to get laid or something?
    
    LikeLike
    
    Reply
    1. bloggerclarissa
      
      January 23, 2013
      
      “Whats with your psychosexual diagnosises? Do you need to get laid or something?”
      
      – Titfortat, I know that you periodically get fits of hysteria, they are very predictable and very boring. Can you make an effort and stop conducting them so publicly? Just do it, man. Get a grip on yourself, OK?
      
      LikeLike
      
      Reply
  3. Titfortat
    
    January 23, 2013
    
    I was doing a psychosexual evaluation of you. Was I accurate?
    
    LikeLike
    
    Reply
    1. bloggerclarissa
      
      January 23, 2013
      
      “I was doing a psychosexual evaluation of you. Was I accurate?”
      
      – Once again, go take a rest, OK? Take care of your health, do some breathing exercises. I promise you will feel much better tomorrow.
      
      LikeLike
      
      Reply
  4. Titfortat
    
    January 23, 2013
    
    Interesting, after reading several of your responses today I was thinking you could probably use a massage. Genuinely, even my wife thought so too. 🙂
    
    LikeLike
    
    Reply
    1. bloggerclarissa
      
      January 23, 2013
      
      Yeah, what a huge guess. Anybody could use a massage at any point of their lives. I haven’t heard of such a phenomenon as superfluous massages.
      
      LikeLike
      
      Reply
  5. Titfortat
    
    January 23, 2013
    
    Yep, guess. Youre the Academic, Im not. 😉
    
    LikeLike
    
    Reply
2. Evelina Anville
  
  January 23, 2013
  
  “But the point is that the problem isn’t guns in the hands of law abiding responsible people.”
  
  That’s precisely the problem: the Virgina Tech, Aurora Co, and Sany Hook massacres were all committed using _legal_ guns by shooters without criminal records. To me this suggests that perhaps guns should be more difficult to obtain than cars or marriage licenses.
  
  LikeLike
  
  Reply
Karl

January 23, 2013

like these people actually think???
they want their guns and by golly it’s their right to have this penis extensions!
Would the NRA not constantly remind these red necks of that because there is such a huge amount of $$$ for the gun and ammunition industry involved, that right would have been repealed a long time ago. This is capitalism at its finest; welcome to America Baby! When money is to be made, logic does not apply.
One question: would any one of these people give up their right if it would safe just one innocent child be accidentally killed (per wiki in 2002 the number is 416 children 5-14 years old)???

LikeLike

Reply
1. bloggerclarissa
  
  January 23, 2013
  
  “like these people actually think???
  they want their guns and by golly it’s their right to have this penis extensions!”
  
  – EXACTLY!!!
  
  “One question: would any one of these people give up their right if it would safe just one innocent child be accidentally killed (per wiki in 2002 the number is 416 children 5-14 years old)???”
  
  – The thing is, in order to place a high value on the life of a child, you have to be an adult. And, as you can see from any discussion these folks engage in, they have the emotional maturity of kindergatners.
  
  LikeLike
  
  Reply
  1. cliff arroyo
    
    January 24, 2013
    
    If guns are penis extensions then are gun control laws vagina extensions?
    
    LikeLike
    
    Reply
    1. bloggerclarissa
      
      January 24, 2013
      
      If you see a vagina as an entity that CONTROLS a penis, then that’s kind of sad. Most men have different associations with this organ.
      
      LikeLike
      
      Reply
  2. cliff arroyo
    
    January 24, 2013
    
    For a literature person your grasp of metaphor is not the strongest (or you’re just not trying)
    
    Gun control laws surround guns and remove them from sight (but only temporarily).
    
    LikeLike
    
    Reply
    1. bloggerclarissa
      
      January 24, 2013
      
      Seriously, I don’t want to get too Freudian here but what a curious line of associations. 🙂
      
      I once conducted an experiment where I asked men what was the first idea, word, concept they associated with a vagina. Most said “warm.” But one man said “teeth.” I’m still wondering. 🙂
      
      LikeLike
      
      Reply
  3. cliff arroyo
    
    January 24, 2013
    
    I like to play around with metaphors, if someone suggests that guns are metaphorical penises then I’m wondering where the vagina is in that metaphor.
    
    Perhaps the bodies of shooting victims is more appropriate (warm and moist receptical for the phallic discharge) while target shooting is masturbation.
    
    If guns are penises then gun control laws are….
    
    A cat lady? (no that would be a former gun user turned gun prohibitionist)
    
    Miss Havisham? (has potential… but the laws would be more a puritanical sexual code that seeks to bend riotous human nature to an agenda of pacification and sublimation)
    
    So, gun control advocates are the new puritans. Works for me.
    
    LikeLike
    
    Reply
    1. bloggerclarissa
      
      January 24, 2013
      
      If these folks had access to a vagina, even an old and dried out one like miss Havisham ‘s, they would have no need to walk around with a gun. 🙂
      
      LikeLike
      
      Reply
    2. bloggerclarissa
      
      January 24, 2013
      
      Sublimation is a road to health, the constant incapacity to do so is a road to a neurosis. And who wants a bunch of armed neurotics on campus?
      
      LikeLike
      
      Reply
cliff arroyo

January 23, 2013

“There is nothing in the constitution about obligating teachers to arm themselves in schools”

I’m against obligating teachers to arm themselves. And I’m against preventing teachers who are legally able to arm themselves from doing so (in post secondary educational institutions).

LikeLike

Reply
1. bloggerclarissa
  
  January 23, 2013
  
  “And I’m against preventing teachers who are legally able to arm themselves from doing so (in post secondary educational institutions).”
  
  – In public spaces and especially in the workplace, people agree to accommodate each other and not engage in a variety of perfectly legal behaviors that will disturb others. Example: I fully support everybody’s right to have any amount of sex they wish. However, I strongly object to people having sex in my presence at the place where I work.
  
  Why should somebody’s whim to wave a gun about in my presence be more important than my right not to have them do that around me?
  
  LikeLike
  
  Reply
  1. cliff arroyo
    
    January 23, 2013
    
    “Why should somebody’s whim to wave a gun about in my presence be more important than my right not to have them do that around me?”
    
    Waving it about (whatever ‘it’ is) in your presence is uncalled for (and highly irresponsible).
    
    LikeLike
    
    Reply
2. Evelina Anville
  
  January 23, 2013
  
  “I’m against preventing teachers who are legally able to arm themselves from doing so”
  
  Well teachers can arms themselves in their own homes if that’s what they want. But why should anyone bring a weapon in to school? I would have been terrified to have an armed teachers as a student. “The right to bear arms” does not mean that every person can carry deadly weapons in to any place they choose just because they fantasize that packing heat makes them invulnerable.
  
  LikeLike
  
  Reply
  1. cliff arroyo
    
    January 24, 2013
    
    “why should anyone bring a weapon in to school?”
    
    self-defense?
    
    “I would have been terrified to have an armed teachers as a student”
    
    You seem to spend a lot of your life in fear….
    
    LikeLike
    
    Reply
    1. bloggerclarissa
      
      January 24, 2013
      
      It makes more sense to suppose that people who see schools as places to defend themselves spend their lives in fear.
      
      LikeLike
      
      Reply
3. musteryou
  
  January 23, 2013
  
  I’m against war and against those against war–Dambudzo Marechera.
  
  LikeLike
  
  Reply
Evelina Anville

January 23, 2013

I don’t even understand the comparison between gasoline and guns at all. Gasoline’s primary purpose is not arson. The primary purpose of a gun is to kill. Doesn’t it make sense that we regulate a weapon more than we regulate a tool?

LikeLike

Reply
musteryou

January 23, 2013

Molotov! Molotov! Molotov!

LikeLike

Reply
musteryou

January 23, 2013

There are no wrong words, right?
There are no wrong trees, right?
There is no wrong sand, right?
I’ve slept the world in frilly
underwear
Dreamed I buggered all the little boys
who are future leaders
Fucked all the funny little girls made of
thatch and ghandy
My anarchist arse has shat on society
And LOOK millions of open flies
are homing in on your wide-open lips.

LikeLike

Reply
1. musteryou
  
  January 23, 2013
  
  Marechera outdoes the right wingers in their permissiveness.
  
  LikeLike
  
  Reply
2. bloggerclarissa
  
  January 23, 2013
  
  His writing is very much like that of my most favorite writer ever Juan Goytisolo.
  
  LikeLike
  
  Reply
  1. musteryou
    
    January 23, 2013
    
    oh yes? I love his line, “my anarchist arse has shat on society”, because I think it is probably the most provocative line he could dream up, to taunt his right wing enemies.
    
    Will look up Juan Goytisolo.
    
    LikeLike
    
    Reply
Z

January 23, 2013

It is true about Marechera and Goytisolo.

LikeLike

Reply
Wirbelwind

January 24, 2013

Well, you could introduce talons on gasoline. I would like to see faces of Americans when they’d have to apply for their monthly talons for 20 L of gas, heh.

LikeLike

Reply
Evelina Anville

January 24, 2013

(Clarissa: I posted this by mistake in a weird place upthread. But it’s the same post as below. Can you please delete the one that’s upthread? Sorry!)

“You seem to spend a lot of your life in fear….”

I actually don’t live in fear at all. Which is why I don’t feel the need to arm myself to the teeth like we live in some 21st century dystopia.

An armed teacher however, _is_ scary (and if a teacher is armed, s/he should be required to inform parents and students.) Think about it from the point of view of a student. Teachers have more power than students. Teachers have the responsibility to teach, grade, and, especially with younger students, promote social behaviors that facilitate learning. If a student gets reprimanded by the teacher, they also know that the teacher has access to a gun. That’s objectively terrifying. Under the “armed teacher” scenario, classroom management works via fear. Classrooms should be safe spaces–.and introducing the possibility of execution, no matter how remote the possibility, erodes that safety.

Allowing guns into the classroom just means that guns will proliferate. And once guns proliferate, so does gun violence. And that’s not fear; that’s statistics.

LikeLike

Reply
1. bloggerclarissa
  
  January 24, 2013
  
  “I actually don’t live in fear at all. Which is why I don’t feel the need to arm myself to the teeth like we live in some 21st century dystopia.”
  
  – Exactly. The people who don’t feel in mortal danger whenever they arrive on campus are the psychologically healthy ones.
  
  “Teachers have the responsibility to teach, grade, and, especially with younger students, promote social behaviors that facilitate learning. If a student gets reprimanded by the teacher, they also know that the teacher has access to a gun. That’s objectively terrifying. Under the “armed teacher” scenario, classroom management works via fear. ”
  
  – Absolutely. It’s strange that this needs to be explained.
  
  LikeLike
  
  Reply
2. Karl
  
  January 24, 2013
  
  yes!
  and gun control laws will not eliminate guns, nor will gun related violence completely disappear. It will – just like your lock at your front door, keeps the honest people out (any criminal who wants to get in will get in; but you still lock your door don’t you?) – keep idiotic sick people from going to a school shooting.
  
  LikeLike
  
  Reply
3. Kyle
  
  January 24, 2013
  
  If the teacher has a concealed carry permit, I think they ought to be allowed to carry it into the school. No student needs to know whether they’re armed or not. I also don’t know if I buy that students would be terrified of a teacher because they have a gun. If the teacher could get away with just shooting a student willy-nilly, then sure, but a teacher can’t do that. A teacher could get into great trouble just for hitting a student, let alone shooting one. I don’t see why the students would not fear such a teacher from hitting them but would all of a sudden fear them shooting them.
  
  LikeLike
  
  Reply
  1. bloggerclarissa
    
    January 25, 2013
    
    “A teacher could get into great trouble just for hitting a student, let alone shooting one. ”
    
    – Because people who begin to shoot into the crowd don’t fear consequences. They normally kill themselves anyway in the end. Did you not know that either?
    
    LikeLike
    
    Reply
  2. Kyle
    
    January 25, 2013
    
    Why would a teacher suddenly shoot into a crowd of students? If they were intent on doing that, they could always just bring a gun to the school.
    
    LikeLike
    
    Reply
    1. bloggerclarissa
      
      January 25, 2013
      
      “Why would a teacher suddenly shoot into a crowd of students?”
      
      – For the same reason that Adam Lanza, the Columbine kids, the guy at Virginia Tech, the Prof at Concordia U, etc. did. These are disturbed people with intense issues. They are not reasonable.
      
      ” If they were intent on doing that, they could always just bring a gun to the school.”
      
      – A disturbed individual might have a sudden impulse to kill but might not have the capacity to plan and carry through like the previously mentioned killers did. A lack of a weapon handy when a destructive impulse overcomes the disturbed individual would prevent the killings.
      
      LikeLike
      
      Reply
  3. Evelina Anville
    
    January 25, 2013
    
    “If the teacher has a concealed carry permit, I think they ought to be allowed to carry it into the school. No student needs to know whether they’re armed or not.”
    
    If a teacher is carrying a leathal weapon around minors (or even around college students), then parents and students have the right to know that information. I seriously don’t understand this pro-gun argument. It’s legal for me to drink but if I marched in to my classroom, popped open a bottle of wine, and began to drink, people would lose their minds. (As well they should. If I did that, I would be wrong.) What is so precious about carrying a gun that it trumps all other safety precautions or rights?
    
    Further, I am not talking about a teacher actually shooting a student; I am talking about the threat of the gun—even if that gun is never shot. Guns are, by definition, threatening. Why should children spend 6 hours a day, 5 days a week, under threat? How can they learn and thrive in that environment? Honestly, I think that any teacher who wants to carry a weapon to school should surrender his/her credentials immediately. Someone who wants to wield that type of power in the classroom is unfit to teach and certainly unfit to be around minors.
    
    LikeLike
    
    Reply
    1. bloggerclarissa
      
      January 25, 2013
      
      “What is so precious about carrying a gun that it trumps all other safety precautions or rights?”
      
      – I think they really see the gun as their body part and separating from it as painful as amputation. I cannot find any other explanation because I can’t imagine any reasonable person wanting to have a gun in a classroom. This is a very bizarre thing to want.
      
      LikeLike
      
      Reply
  4. Kyle
    
    January 25, 2013
    
    “- A disturbed individual might have a sudden impulse to kill but might not have the capacity to plan and carry through like the previously mentioned killers did. A lack of a weapon handy when a destructive impulse overcomes the disturbed individual would prevent the killings.”
    
    Possibly, but the chance of that happening I’d think is pretty rare. If you get the urge to kill students enough, you will eventually probably do so, even if it requires going and obtaining a weapon.
    
    But also, this logic could be flipped. For example, I could argue what if a deranged individual comes into the school shooting, and if any of the teachers were armed, they could shoot the individual, but because none are, everyone gets slaughtered?
    
    LikeLike
    
    Reply
  5. Kyle
    
    January 25, 2013
    
    “If a teacher is carrying a leathal weapon around minors (or even around college students), then parents and students have the right to know that information. I seriously don’t understand this pro-gun argument. It’s legal for me to drink but if I marched in to my classroom, popped open a bottle of wine, and began to drink, people would lose their minds. (As well they should. If I did that, I would be wrong.) What is so precious about carrying a gun that it trumps all other safety precautions or rights?”
    
    This is an argument, then let the parents know, but the students need not.
    
    “Further, I am not talking about a teacher actually shooting a student; I am talking about the threat of the gun—even if that gun is never shot. Guns are, by definition, threatening. Why should children spend 6 hours a day, 5 days a week, under threat?”
    
    Define “under threat.” Under threat could be defined as in a school with a big huge sign saying “Gun Free Zone” (i.e. ATTENTION MASS SHOOTERS: NO ONE IN THE BUILDING IS ARMED) as opposed to a gun being on a teacher.
    
    “How can they learn and thrive in that environment? Honestly, I think that any teacher who wants to carry a weapon to school should surrender his/her credentials immediately. Someone who wants to wield that type of power in the classroom is unfit to teach and certainly unfit to be around minors.”
    
    Since when is a teacher carrying a gun in the school “wielding power in the classroom.” You make it sound like they’ll threaten the children with it or something. I’d say such a person is just a responsible adult who understands that we don’t live in a perfect world and sometimes maniacs come in shooting at innocents.
    
    LikeLike
    
    Reply
    1. bloggerclarissa
      
      January 25, 2013
      
      “This is an argument, then let the parents know, but the students need not.”
      
      – ‘Children are not human beings” is an argument that should be kept off my blog. This is not up for discussion.
      
      “Since when is a teacher carrying a gun in the school “wielding power in the classroom.””
      
      – A teacher always wields power in the classroom. Teaching is a position of power with or without a gun.
      
      “I’d say such a person is just a responsible adult who understands that we don’t live in a perfect world and sometimes maniacs come in shooting at innocents.”
      
      – What if the armed teacher is that maniac?
      
      LikeLike
      
      Reply
  6. Kyle
    
    January 25, 2013
    
    “- I think they really see the gun as their body part and separating from it as painful as amputation. I cannot find any other explanation because I can’t imagine any reasonable person wanting to have a gun in a classroom. This is a very bizarre thing to want.”
    
    Your logic here only applies if there is absolutely ZERO threat of anyone coming into the school and killing people. Otherwise, such a person just doesn’t want to be a dis-armed sheep and wants the chance to stop such a shooter. There’s two scenarios that happen there:
    
    1) The shooters come in and the teacher shoots the shooter and stops them from murdering more people.
    
    2) The shooter comes in and kills the teacher before the teacher can shoot them, and then proceeds to kill lots of children.
    
    Version 2 will happen for sure if no one in the building is armed.
    
    LikeLike
    
    Reply
    1. bloggerclarissa
      
      January 25, 2013
      
      “Otherwise, such a person just doesn’t want to be a dis-armed sheep and wants the chance to stop such a shooter.”
      
      – A normal person does not. Only a castrate does.
      
      “1) The shooters come in and the teacher shoots the shooter and stops them from murdering more people.”
      
      – This is getting boring. I will repeat this once more but this will be the last time: Even a trained police officer cannot shoot and kill a moving assailant in a crowd without hurting a lot of bystanders and probably missing anyway. The only person – the absolutely only one – who would be able to shoot the killer and not murder half of the crowd in the process is a trained sharpshooter with extensive psychological and military training. Your fantasy of a teacher who whips out a gun and shoots a murderer on sight is an erotic fantasy. I think you must have had a crush on your male first-grade teacher, eh? 🙂
      
      LikeLike
      
      Reply
  7. Kyle
    
    January 25, 2013
    
    “- ‘Children are not human beings” is an argument that should be kept off my blog. This is not up for discussion.”
    
    Who said they’re not human beings? Please do not put words into my mouth. I never said they are not human beings. I said they need not be informed whether the teacher has a gun. A child is not of the appropriate level of maturity to be able to know whether that is a good thing or not.
    
    “- A teacher always wields power in the classroom. Teaching is a position of power with or without a gun.”
    
    Yes, but the gun doesn’t somehow increase their ability to wield power. And if they tried using it for that, they’d be arrested.
    
    “- What if the armed teacher is that maniac?”
    
    Then they’re likely to be armed regardless of what the law says because they’re a maniac.
    
    LikeLike
    
    Reply
    1. bloggerclarissa
      
      January 25, 2013
      
      “I said they need not be informed whether the teacher has a gun. A child is not of the appropriate level of maturity to be able to know whether that is a good thing or not.”
      
      – Translation: children are not human beings.
      
      “Then they’re likely to be armed regardless of what the law says because they’re a maniac.”
      
      – I have already answered this: “A disturbed individual might have a sudden impulse to kill but might not have the capacity to plan and carry through like the previously mentioned killers did. A lack of a weapon handy when a destructive impulse overcomes the disturbed individual would prevent the killings.”
      
      “Yes, but the gun doesn’t somehow increase their ability to wield power. And if they tried using it for that, they’d be arrested.”
      
      – I have already answered this, too: “These are disturbed people with intense issues. They are not reasonable.”
      
      Please try to concentrate.
      
      LikeLike
      
      Reply
  8. Kyle
    
    January 25, 2013
    
    “- A normal person does not. Only a castrate does.”
    
    It’s abnormal to want to be able to defend oneself?
    
    “- This is getting boring. I will repeat this once more but this will be the last time: Even a trained police officer cannot shoot and kill a moving assailant in a crowd without hurting a lot of bystanders and probably missing anyway.”
    
    That depends on the police officer. And who said the assailant will be amongst a crowd of people. If you’re in the classroom and the guy is coming up the hallway, you shoot him when he arrives at the door. No crowd of people involved.
    
    “The only person – the absolutely only one – who would be able to shoot the killer and not murder half of the crowd in the process is a trained sharpshooter with extensive psychological and military training. Your fantasy of a teacher who whips out a gun and shoots a murderer on sight is an erotic fantasy. I think you must have had a crush on your male first-grade teacher, eh?”
    
    I don’t know where people get this whole idea of a “crowd” thing, as if the shooter wil lalways be amongst a crowd. And BTW, standard police procedure now in the event of a shooter in a school is for the police officers to go inside and try to stop him, not to wait outside for the SWAT team to arrive.
    
    LikeLike
    
    Reply
    1. bloggerclarissa
      
      January 25, 2013
      
      “It’s abnormal to want to be able to defend oneself?”
      
      – You are making me repeat things I already said 5 times. What is it with you? We, autistics, are supposed to have a superior capacity of concentrating but with you, it’s like there is none. I repeat: it is abnormal to believe that having a gun on campus will defend you.
      
      “I don’t know where people get this whole idea of a “crowd” thing, as if the shooter wil lalways be amongst a crowd.”
      
      – Maybe they watched the Columbine tapes.
      
      “And BTW, standard police procedure now in the event of a shooter in a school is for the police officers to go inside and try to stop him, not to wait outside for the SWAT team to arrive.”
      
      – And how many have they stopped, exactly? I mean before the massacre happened, not after.
      
      LikeLike
      
      Reply
  9. Kyle
    
    January 25, 2013
    
    “Translation: children are not human beings.”
    
    Children are very much human beings. But a child doesn’t have a fully-developed brain yet, as they are still growing. That’s just a biological fact.
    
    “- I have already answered this: “A disturbed individual might have a sudden impulse to kill but might not have the capacity to plan and carry through like the previously mentioned killers did. A lack of a weapon handy when a destructive impulse overcomes the disturbed individual would prevent the killings.””
    
    IMO, this strikes me as an odd fantasy scenario. The chance of it happening is virtually nil. This is the threat that the gun control folk always claim will happen when concealed carry is allowed in areas, that you’ll have the Wild West starting up. It never happens. Instead, all the major mass shootings happen in the areas where people are not allowed to be armed.
    
    “- I have already answered this, too: “These are disturbed people with intense issues. They are not reasonable.”
    
    Please try to concentrate.”
    
    If they’re that disturbed, and are a teacher, they’ll likely have the ability to acquire a firearm and bring it to the school.
    
    LikeLike
    
    Reply
  10. Kyle
    
    January 25, 2013
    
    “- You are making me repeat things I already said 5 times. What is it with you? We, autistics, are supposed to have a superior capacity of concentrating but with you, it’s like there is none. I repeat: it is abnormal to believe that having a gun on campus will defend you.”
    
    Really? Says who? So the shooter will always have the ability to hit their target, but the person shooting at the shooter won’t have a chance at all of hitting them?
    
    “- Maybe they watched the Columbine tapes.”
    
    The Columbine boys weren’t among a crowd, they went classroom to classroom shooting people.
    
    “- And how many have they stopped, exactly? I mean before the massacre happened, not after.”
    
    Not too many, which is why people should be allowed to be armed to protect themselves, because if not, the shooter is free to kill as they please and everyone gets killed regardless.
    
    LikeLike
    
    Reply
David Gendron

January 24, 2013

Again, nobody here talks about the possibility of a police-military-criminals oligopoly of weapons…

LikeLike

Reply
David Gendron

January 24, 2013

But I’m against guns at school.

LikeLike

Reply
David Gendron

January 24, 2013

Arming teachers is just a tool to increase the bullying of students by teachers. I don’t like this idea.

LikeLike

Reply
Kyle

January 24, 2013

The debate is childish on both sides of the fence. For one, all this talk of an “assault weapons ban” for example. There is no such thing as an “assault weapon.” There are so many myths and misconceptions about firearms and the Second Amendment as a whole that correcting them all can be like trying to count grains in the sand.

LikeLike

Reply
1. bloggerclarissa
  
  January 24, 2013
  
  “There is no such thing as an “assault weapon.”
  
  – Yes, there is if this is the term people prefer. What are you, language police?
  
  “The debate is childish on both sides of the fence.”
  
  – Look who’s talking.
  
  LikeLike
  
  Reply
  1. Kyle
    
    January 25, 2013
    
    “- Yes, there is if this is the term people prefer. What are you, language police?”
    
    Not in terms of the technicals regarding guns, there isn’t. People can call something what they please, but that doesn’t mean it’s an actual technical term regarding firearms in the way many seem to think. And the term didn’t innocently become part of the conversation on guns, it was purposely created by the gun control advocates, who rely on the fact that lots of people do not understand guns.
    
    The gun control movement would face much more skepticism if they came out and openly said that they want to ban scary-looking guns. So they instead gave them a name, “assault weapons.”
    
    “- Look who’s talking.”
    
    I’m being childish?
    
    LikeLike
    
    Reply
    1. bloggerclarissa
      
      January 25, 2013
      
      Who claimed it’s an actual technical term? Do you use actual technical terms for everything or sometimes use lay terminology?
      
      LikeLike
      
      Reply
    2. bloggerclarissa
      
      January 25, 2013
      
      “The gun control movement would face much more skepticism if they came out and openly said that they want to ban scary-looking guns. So they instead gave them a name, “assault weapons.””
      
      – Do you really think that the reason why people are demanding these weapons be banned because they LOOK scary? If so, then yes, you are very childish.
      
      LikeLike
      
      Reply
  2. Kyle
    
    January 25, 2013
    
    “Who claimed it’s an actual technical term? Do you use actual technical terms for everything or sometimes use lay terminology?”
    
    The politicians, the media, the gun control proponents, etc…all speak as if it is a technical term referring to a specific type of gun. For example, right after the Sandy Hook shoot, you had numerous politicians on television saying, “Nobody needs to own a military-style assault weapon,” as if a “military-style assault weapon” means a special type of gun with some special enhanced ability to kill and destroy that other guns do not have.
    
    LikeLike
    
    Reply
    1. bloggerclarissa
      
      January 25, 2013
      
      “The politicians, the media, the gun control proponents, etc…all speak as if it is a technical term referring to a specific type of gun. ”
      
      – “As if” means that you have no examples of anybody claiming that this was an actual technical term. Just as I thought.
      
      And now I will reveal to you why people use this expression which is not an actual technical term. The reason is that “the class of weapons that can kill a large number of people in a very limited period of time” takes forever to pronounce and write. So people use a stand in expression instead. Just like you do when you say “I have a cold” instead of “I suffer from acute rhinopharyngitis.” And nobody polices your use of “cold” instead of ‘rhinopharyngitis’, do they?
      
      LikeLike
      
      Reply
  3. Kyle
    
    January 25, 2013
    
    “- Do you really think that the reason why people are demanding these weapons be banned because they LOOK scary? If so, then yes, you are very childish.”
    
    No. People want them banned because the think they are powerful machines guns or what have you. The trouble is that they are nothing of the sort and people wouldn’t be nearly as concerned about them if they knew this. But many in the gun control movement are fully aware of this and thus exploit it as an opportunity to get a lot of guns banned that they otherwise would not be able to ban. That is why the term “assault weapon” was invented. Because otherwise they’d have to literally call for the banning of guns that look scary, which wouldn’t get them taken too seriously.
    
    LikeLike
    
    Reply
    1. bloggerclarissa
      
      January 25, 2013
      
      “No. People want them banned because the think they are powerful machines guns or what have you. ”
      
      – Your mind reading skills are not very good. What people want to see banned is “the class of weapons that can kill a large number of people in a very limited period of time.” Nobody cares what these weapons look like. Except, apparently, you. I definitely have know idea what they look like because where exactly would I see them?
      
      LikeLike
      
      Reply
  4. Kyle
    
    January 25, 2013
    
    “- Your mind reading skills are not very good. What people want to see banned is “the class of weapons that can kill a large number of people in a very limited period of time.” Nobody cares what these weapons look like. Except, apparently, you. I definitely have know idea what they look like because where exactly would I see them?”
    
    There is no “class of weapons that can kill a large number of people in a very limited period of time.” But that’s what many people think they are. People care what they look like in that loads of people judge the weapons solely based on their appearance.
    
    LikeLike
    
    Reply
    1. bloggerclarissa
      
      January 25, 2013
      
      “There is no “class of weapons that can kill a large number of people in a very limited period of time.” But that’s what many people think they are. People care what they look like in that loads of people judge the weapons solely based on their appearance.”
      
      – I already said that mind reading is not your forte. The only person discussing this who is fixated on the weapons’ appearance is you. You are ascribing your fixations to other people.
      
      LikeLike
      
      Reply
Evelina Anville

January 25, 2013

“Since when is a teacher carrying a gun in the school “wielding power in the classroom.” You make it sound like they’ll threaten the children with it or something.”

Carrying a gun is, in and of itself, a threat. You don’t need to waive it around or say anything. The presence of a gun is inherently threatening. And I don’t think minors should be lied to; if they going to have spend their days with an armed individual, they should know.

Besides, as I said up thread, more guns always means more gun deaths. The idea that guns reduce gun deaths is a fantasy. Look at any analysis. There is simply no support for the idea that arming lots of people solves the problem of gun violence.

LikeLike

Reply
1. Kyle
  
  January 25, 2013
  
  You are over-simplifying the issue. More guns does not necessarilly equal more gun deaths (or else the police and the security of government officials wouldn’t be armed). And no one claims that letting people be armed solves the problem of gun violence. It does however allow people to defend themselves when gun violence occurs and to reduce gun violence when it occurs. Every major mass shooting in recent American history, minus Gabrielle Giffords, has occurred in a “gun free zone,” not in an area where people are armed.
  
  More guns “can” mean more gun deaths, but that depends on how you’re looking at it. For example, if you have a country like America with lots of guns, and then say a country the same size and population as America with no guns, then yes, you could reasonably say America will have more gun deaths. Then you also have to define “gun deaths,” for example do we mean gun violence or accidental gun deaths?
  
  And so forth. This kind of stuff is like a book-length treatment, and both sides twist their statistics so it’s important to read both sides’s arguments.
  
  LikeLike
  
  Reply
2. bloggerclarissa
  
  January 25, 2013
  
  “And I don’t think minors should be lied to; if they going to have spend their days with an armed individual, they should know.”
  
  – We are not even discussing minors here. The conversation started with the idea of arming college profs.
  
  LikeLike
  
  Reply
  1. Evelina Anville
    
    January 25, 2013
    
    That’s true. The OP was about college. But I have read people suggesting that teachers at all levels should be armed. I guess my point is that students (from Kindergarten through University) have the right to know if their teacher is armed. Teachers and profs shouldn’t get to keep this info “secret.”
    
    LikeLike
    
    Reply
    1. bloggerclarissa
      
      January 25, 2013
      
      “I guess my point is that students (from Kindergarten through University) have the right to know if their teacher is armed. Teachers and profs shouldn’t get to keep this info “secret.””
      
      – They shouldn’t be armed, period. Of course, I’m completely opposed to lying to children because it’s pointless anyways. But I hope it doesn’t come to that at all.
      
      LikeLike
      
      Reply
  2. Evelina Anville
    
    January 25, 2013
    
    “They [teachers] shouldn’t be armed, period”
    
    I couldn’t agree with you more. And by and large the people who seem to support this ludicrous idea aren’t teachers.
    
    LikeLike
    
    Reply
  3. Kyle
    
    January 25, 2013
    
    Mandating all teachers be armed I think is a very bad idea, but otherwise, I think if a teacher wants to arm themselves to be able to protect themselves in these so-called Gun Free Zones, it’s fine.
    
    BTW, why is it you guys trust a cop to be armed but not a teacher? Teachers are generally pretty upstanding individuals.
    
    LikeLike
    
    Reply
    1. bloggerclarissa
      
      January 25, 2013
      
      “BTW, why is it you guys trust a cop to be armed but not a teacher? Teachers are generally pretty upstanding individuals.”
      
      – Who exactly said that we want armed cops in a classroom???
      
      LikeLike
      
      Reply
  4. Kyle
    
    January 25, 2013
    
    Clarissa, I’m not talking about in the classroom, I’m saying that why is it people get upset over the idea of some teachers being armed in the classroom, but no one is fearful of armed cops on the streets?
    
    LikeLike
    
    Reply
    1. bloggerclarissa
      
      January 25, 2013
      
      “Clarissa, I’m not talking about in the classroom, I’m saying that why is it people get upset over the idea of some teachers being armed in the classroom, but no one is fearful of armed cops on the streets?”
      
      – Because being armed is the cops’ job. I would be plenty fearful if cops tried teaching Spanish literature, so cops should be very fearful if I start policing streets. Everybody should just do their job. Division of labor is the mark of a civilized capitalist society. lack of division of labor is Marx’s dream.
      
      LikeLike
      
      Reply
  5. Kyle
    
    January 25, 2013
    
    I agree wholeheartedly that the teacher should be not be doing the cop’s job. The problem though is that if the cops aren’t around, an armed teacher can be the second-best thing. And technically, the teacher might be better-trained than the cop if they shoot regularly (it is a myth that cops are well-trained or heavily-trained with firearms). For example, it took the police 20 minutes to get to the Sandy Hook school after being contacted.
    
    LikeLike
    
    Reply
    1. bloggerclarissa
      
      January 25, 2013
      
      “The problem though is that if the cops aren’t around, an armed teacher can be the second-best thing.”
      
      – Kyle, seriously, you sound like a broken record. I answered this exactly six times already. Here you go again: Even a trained police officer cannot shoot and kill a moving assailant in a crowd without hurting a lot of bystanders and probably missing anyway. The only person – the absolutely only one – who would be able to shoot the killer and not murder half of the crowd in the process is a trained sharpshooter with extensive psychological and military training. Your fantasy of a teacher who whips out a gun and shoots a murderer on sight is an erotic fantasy.
      
      If you make the same idiotic comment about an armed teacher being capable of defending students in case of a mass shooting, that will simply be trolling. You only think that you take part in discussions and voice arguments. In reality, you are consistently incapable of doing that. You just latch on to a single completely silly statement and keep repeating it dozens of times, changing the wording slightly. That isn’t a discussion. A discussion is supposed to progress.
      
      LikeLike
      
      Reply
  6. Kyle
    
    January 25, 2013
    
    “- Kyle, seriously, you sound like a broken record. I answered this exactly six times already. Here you go again: Even a trained police officer cannot shoot and kill a moving assailant in a crowd”
    
    Did you read my post where I addressed this? The shooter may not, and likely will not, be in a crowd if shooting up a school.
    
    “without hurting a lot of bystanders and probably missing anyway.”
    
    Your logic here is that because a few people might get shot in the process of stopping the shooter, you’d rather the teacher be un-armed, thus giving the shooter free-reign to kill everyone.
    
    “The only person – the absolutely only one – who would be able to shoot the killer and not murder half of the crowd in the process is a trained sharpshooter with extensive psychological and military training. Your fantasy of a teacher who whips out a gun and shoots a murderer on sight is an erotic fantasy.”
    
    If the teacher could shoot the shooter when they enter the doorway of the classroom, or in the hallway, it’s not a fantasy. And the alternative to it is that everyone gets shot anyway because the teacher was not armed, so what’s the concern here?
    
    “If you make the same idiotic comment about an armed teacher being capable of defending students in case of a mass shooting, that will simply be trolling. You only think that you take part in discussions and voice arguments. In reality, you are consistently incapable of doing that. You just latch on to a single completely silly statement and keep repeating it dozens of times, changing the wording slightly. That isn’t a discussion. A discussion is supposed to progress.”
    
    I’m not trolling by any means, I’m making an argument. I do not understand your logic on this subject. You are saying that because SOME people might get shot in the process of shooting a shooter, then the teacher shouldn’t be armed. Then what is the alternative? EVERYONE gets shot and killed.
    
    LikeLike
    
    Reply
Evelina Anville

January 25, 2013

There is no “class of weapons that can kill a large number of people in a very limited period of time.”

Huh? I don’t know much about weaponrwy. But I do know that there are things like revolver and pistols and then there are things that are much faster than revolvers and pistols. I want to get rid of the fast ones.

“loads of people judge the weapons solely based on their appearance”

I literally don’t know what these guns look like. How would I know? Again, if it’s faster than a revolver or a hunting rifle, it should be saved for the military. I’m worried about speed–not looks.

LikeLike

Reply
1. Kyle
  
  January 25, 2013
  
  “Huh? I don’t know much about weaponrwy. But I do know that there are things like revolver and pistols and then there are things that are much faster than revolvers and pistols. I want to get rid of the fast ones.”
  
  We already have. Revolvers are a form of pistol. The other form of pistol is magazine-fed. Both fire at one bullet per trigger pull. Guns that fire faster than that (automatic fire weapons) are already banned for the most part.
  
  “I literally don’t know what these guns look like. How would I know? Again, if it’s faster than a revolver or a hunting rifle, it should be saved for the military. I’m worried about speed–not looks.”
  
  Perhaps not yourself, but there are a lot of people who do judge them by their looks. They assume if it looks like a machine gun, it must be a machine gun. Hence the whole drive to ban “assault weapons.” If appearance was irrelevent, no one would even propose an assault weapons ban.
  
  Also “hunting rifle” is a meaningless term. Any gun can be used for hunting if it will kill the animal that you using it for.
  
  LikeLike
  
  Reply
  1. Karl
    
    January 25, 2013
    
    oh I am sure a lot of the dead victims feel a lot better now;
    who knew they only got killed by a scary looking gun, it wasn’t really scary at all, halleluiah!
    
    LikeLike
    
    Reply
    1. bloggerclarissa
      
      January 25, 2013
      
      “oh I am sure a lot of the dead victims feel a lot better now;
      who knew they only got killed by a scary looking gun, it wasn’t really scary at all, halleluiah!”
      
      – Yes, seriously, man, what a relief.
      
      LikeLike
      
      Reply
Karl

January 25, 2013

how about nobody has a gun in the first place??
no scenario takes place and nobody gets killed; should we not try this first?

LikeLike

Reply
Evelina Anville

January 25, 2013

“Yes, but the gun doesn’t somehow increase their [the teacher’s] ability to wield power. And if they tried using it for that, they’d be arrested. ”

YES. It does. Teachers have to correct, and sometimes reprimand, students. What’s more threatening? A correction coming from an armed individual? Or a correction from an unarmed individual? You KNOW that there is a difference between the two. Come on…..

LikeLike

Reply
1. Kyle
  
  January 25, 2013
  
  You seem to think every student would be terrified of the teacher because they are armed. I don’t know why this is. I know myself I wouldn’t have cared if a teacher was armed unless people thought there was seriously something mentally wrong about them. Otherwise, you’d just know they were armed. So what? You act up in the classroom, the teacher isn’t going to shoot you.
  
  LikeLike
  
  Reply
  1. bloggerclarissa
    
    January 25, 2013
    
    “I know myself I wouldn’t have cared if a teacher was armed unless people thought there was seriously something mentally wrong about them.”
    
    – I will tell you something that will change your life” there are people who don’t think, feel or perceive absolutely everything in the exact way that you do. Shocking, I know.
    
    LikeLike
    
    Reply
Evelina Anville

January 25, 2013

“You seem to think every student would be terrified of the teacher because they are armed. I don’t know why this is. I know myself I wouldn’t have cared if a teacher was armed”

I think you aren’t being entirely honest with yourself here. You know that people react differently to armed individuals than they do unarmed individuals. This point is hardly debatable.

LikeLike

Reply
1. Kyle
  
  January 25, 2013
  
  No they don’t. Maybe people where you live hold a fear of anyone who is armed, but where I live, people do not behave so.
  
  LikeLike
  
  Reply
  1. bloggerclarissa
    
    January 25, 2013
    
    “No they don’t. Maybe people where you live hold a fear of anyone who is armed, but where I live, people do not behave so.”
    
    – Have you questioned every single person in your state? 🙂 Including children, I hope.
    
    LikeLike
    
    Reply
  2. Kyle
    
    January 25, 2013
    
    I see your point there, but I live in a pretty gun-friendly area. But also, depending on where you go in America, some people are much more frightened of guns then others.
    
    LikeLike
    
    Reply
Evelina Anville

January 25, 2013

“BTW, why is it you guys trust a cop to be armed but not a teacher? Teachers are generally pretty upstanding individuals”

Well I don’t think that alll police should be armed. But that’s besides the point. Teachers and cops can’t even be compared here. It’s like asking why teachers don’t take the bar exam…..Police are involved in the prevention and apprehension of crime–activites that may need force. Teachers are involved in education and creating a space that fosters intellectual achievement and emotional growth–activies that should NEVER use force.

LikeLike

Reply
1. Kyle
  
  January 25, 2013
  
  And I agree that they should never use force in doing their job. The gun would be for using force in the event of an Adam Lanza coming to the school.
  
  LikeLike
  
  Reply
Gun Control | Clarissa's Blog

October 6, 2015

[…] There are stupid arguments on both sides of the deeply boring gun control discussion. Here we discussed such a stupid argument advanced by the opponents of gun control. […]

LikeLike

Reply

Leave a comment Cancel reply

A conservative literary critic and college professor

Recent posts