all im saying is, there's a time and a place for a head on, no non sense approach.  i dont think this is the time.  sometimes, you need some finesse.

its like a game of football.  you can have the best o line in the world, the best running backs, whatever.  but if the defense knows what you're going to do, you cant keep running it up the middle expecting it to always work.  sometimes, you need a little play action, a little misdirection, something to keep the defense honest.  right now, calling for the arming of teachers is like us trying to run between the tackles when they have 9 men in the box. 

in this case, i'd talk about looking at the problems the US has with treating mental illness.  take guns out of the equation entirely.  dont treat it as a gun issue, and look at the fact that we had a disturbed 20 year old who clearly wasnt getting proper treatment for his mental illness.

or say nothing.

anything but suggesting more guns is the answer, because anytime that comes up, pretty much every single person who favors gun control starts rolling in laughter and immediately writes you off.

take a look at he comments on the news stories.  just an hour after the news came out, the comments sections were flooded with people derisively saying "i cant wait for the NRA to chime in.  let me guess, IF only the teachers were packing, this wouldnt have happened.  lol, NRA is stupid"

it doesnt matter if its right or not, if the people you're arguing against already know the argument, and have already written it off before you even open your mouth.  think with your head, not with your heart.  if you cant wrap your head around that, you're going to continue to be frustrated you keep getting the same responses out of the gun control crowd, while you keep sitting there wondering why no one gets it.

you have to understand, you're arguing against people who dont like you and are deeply biased against your views.  not only that, people who are still emotionally compromised by the event.  this isnt an even debate, and you cant win just by telling the truth.  you're a black man in the jim crow south facing an all white, racist jury who's just framed you for a murder.  the truth doesnt matter as much as it should, you have to be smarter than that.

While I personally don't agree with most of what you say. I do agree with your first statement about the person being mentally disturbed. But I feel we need to combine that with the truth about guns and gun violence. The two together is a powerful argument and won't be taken lightly by those with a brain.

And I certainly don't think saying nothing is a good idea because then people are only going to hear one side of the story and will be influenced only by that side. Truly not a good idea not matter how you slice it.

But the third issue you bring up about being concerned about being laughed at is disconcerting to me. I really think if you are going to let people laughing at you to influence what you say, especially when the truth is the best and only true defense to these attacks then I would say that you wouldn't come across as very confident nor would you being saying much of anything to quell a lot of the emotion. I believe you are not seeing the whole picture. You are only seeing the people who are laughing and have an unmovable opinion. But there is also a huge audience that is not laughing and don't have a strong opinion either way. These are the people that will react positively to the truth. And yet you would choose to ignore them.

Here is how I see this. Truth be it, right or wrong. If you tell the truth then it is up to the people who hear your side to determine if they agree or not. The people who you believe are laughing at you are going to laugh no matter what you say. They are going to think what they want no matter what. They are the true idiots in my opinion. Who cares what they think in this case? You care and that scares me. So why not just tell the truth and let those who are not laughing decide for themselves? Otherwise you will probably come off as disingenuous as the anti-gun people do to us by not addressing the entire issue. You honestly don't think that the people laughing at you wouldn't pick up on the fact that you are avoiding talking about guns? I believe if you do as you say you truly will come across as an idiot. But not just to the anti-gun people. You will come across that way to those who can be swayed by the truth.

Unfortunately, I believe that acts like this start with a mentally unstable person and a bullet and MUST end and usually does end with a bullet. In other words, in order to stop the perp the perp needs to be shot to stop. Whether that bullet comes from an armed teacher/principal, an armed guard/policeman or from the perps own gun makes no difference. The only way to stop this sort of behavior is with a bullet. If you don't make that point come across to those who believe differently you are doing us pro gun people an injustice. JMHO 

all im saying is, there's a time and a place for a head on, no non sense approach.  i dont think this is the time.  sometimes, you need some finesse.

its like a game of football.  you can have the best o line in the world, the best running backs, whatever.  but if the defense knows what you're going to do, you cant keep running it up the middle expecting it to always work.  sometimes, you need a little play action, a little misdirection, something to keep the defense honest.  right now, calling for the arming of teachers is like us trying to run between the tackles when they have 9 men in the box.

I am a little confused here. Earlier you said you wouldn't tell the truth and now you are saying you would tell the truth. Just not now? Is that what I am getting from you?

I don't agree here either. We are being attacked by the anti-gun people full force straight at our faces. By not replying with the full honest truth and in a strong and unwaving fashion is the only way not to show weakness. If we show weakness we lose those that are able to be brought over to our side. The more people we lose now, the less we will be able to win over when we finally would come forth as you feel is the right way to do this.

If it is hard for people to take hearing that teachers need to be armed to help prevent this sort of thing then let them have it full force so they can decide if it is the only right way to look at this. Speak the truth about how ineffectual gun laws are. And give examples how armed citizens STOP crime and people will listen. Not all. But if our side comes across as unwilling to talk about our side for the first few weeks then come at our detractors full force a few weeks later we will look like have flopped and will look like the idiots you are so afraid of us looking like. Let's face it, the truth is the more armed people we have in this country the less gun related crime we have. That should include teachers, principals, pilots, bus drivers, etc. The anti-gun lobby has no come back to this except to lie. Those who want to believe lies will do so no matter what. But those who care about the truth will see our side (an not laugh at us). We have no choice but to tell the truth and tell it point blank and tell it over and over again and not change our story. Otherwise there will be consequences to not doing so. We should be the ones putting the anti-gun lobby into the ropes and go on the offensive. By waiting for them to strike just so we can react will not gain us anything and will probably make us look weak. JMHO 

Not one mention here of the sicko video games kids play these days instead of going outside and doing anything healthy.  They sit for hours using virtual reality weapons to slay with great glee.

The garbage Hollywierd pumps out that kids lap up like milk is all drugs, violence, and glorification of the same.

I am a geezer now, but does no one find it odd that it is all youngsters doing all this crazy crap.  Far as I know none of us old VN vets with supposed demons chasing around in our skulls has pulled the pin to take out those that seem to so dearly need it?

Herr Storm ban-fuher Napalitano wants veterans watched as terrorist threats, but is silent about the NEA raised generation of X-Box video murder veterans.

I sit and read all this crap, and grow more and more enraged at the total misdirection and lack of thought.  No one ever asks, why did this not happen 40-50 years ago, what is different?  The MSM shudders that someone might ask that and perhaps have an audience that listens and considers.

Of course, the entertainment industry would be gravely threatened by any such awareness......

Not advocating one way or another about the whole video game debate but as a baby-boomer myself, times have dramatically changed for better or worst. And you're right on point, how come all the VN vets who endured so much psychological trauma aren't or haven't been the ones shooting up innocent people. Just my opinion but kids now days are glued to video games and they become obsessed with them. Whatever happened to the days when the neighborhood kids got together and all played a friendly game of baseball with a beat up bat and a baseball half torn apart or a game of tackle football where half the kids came home battle damaged from the game and the parents didn't even flitch because that was how kids played in those days. Not saying today's generation is bad, we had our quirks too but I don't recall young adults and kids killing innocent people just for the hell of it, even if they had mental problems. Just think times change from generation to generation to include parenting and the older we get, the older folks reflect and compare...it's human nature to try to comprehend why certain things happen much more frequently than years ago. Probably someone can dig up an argument of just the opposite and I'm sure it's coming but it's just my opinion and not fact based. Oh just to add one thing, we didn't have Internet and now everything travels fast to any and every sicko out there to get stupid ideas.

and pretending the game doesnt exist and spitting in its face doesnt get you far towards winning the game.

its not about being afraid to speak the truth, its about being smart and not sabotaging yourself. 

why speak the truth and lose when you can hold onto that truth, and be smart, and say the right things, and win?

the connection of gun free zones isnt the issue, and even bringing up that issue when there are many things they could have said to make people on the other side more sympathetic to the cause is just a smarter move.

its great to stand up for what you believe in.  but sometimes its smarter to hold your tongue.

What you're proposing sounds a lot like prevaricating, and this debate will not be won by people who fib, or tell half-truths.  Entering the discussion with talking points that are deliberately intended to deflect from the facts, for whatever reason, will not be well-received.  Telling people that we should be allowed to have guns because it's our right won't make a bit of difference.  The fact is, nobody cares about your rights, especially when the Brady Bunch are running around doing their damnedest to convince them that your rights pose a clear and present danger to the health and well-being of their children.  We have to clearly highlight the fact that, aside from being a basic human right, allowing people to be armed for self-defense makes society safer.  Anything less is a losing proposition.

While we're on the subject, here's why I'm extraordinarily hesitant to endorse the calls for improved "mental health reporting".  What most of these people are actually proposing is that we give unquestioned authority to strip Constitutional rights to every mental health provider in the country.  Every shooter is described as "troubled" or "unstable".  No shit.  The guy just killed 26 people, I'd say he was damn sure unstable.  What were the warning signs?  A lot of these guys acted screwy, and in hindsight it's pretty clear that they were nuts, but without the benefit of hindsight, how will we enforce this mental health reporting?  Will we take away guns from everyone who ever caused a scene in a college classroom?  Everyone who's undergoing treatment for any kind of disorder, regardless how mild, be it depression, PTSD, or anxiety?  Again, in hindsight most of these guys seem like they're destined for a school shooting, but are we willing to strip the rights of the hundreds of thousands of people just like them who were never going to go on a rampage? 

Here's why the Brady Campaign wants to improve "mental health reporting": everybody's crazy.  If they can get it on the books that all it takes to justify confiscation of your guns is the opinion of a psychiatrist, they've more or less won all the marbles, because everyone can be diagnosed with some disorder or other.  Even if they wrote it to only include straight-up crazy people who think they're Batman, I'd be concerned about the legislative updates down the road to include PTSD, or depression, or anxiety, or any of the other 297 disorders currently listed in the DSM.  The DSM describes mental disorders as follows: "there is no assumption that each category of mental disorder is a completely discrete entity with absolute boundaries dividing it from other mental disorders or from no mental disorder".  In other words, the difference between crazy and sane is pretty darned fuzzy.

What you're proposing sounds a lot like prevaricating, and this debate will not be won by people who fib, or tell half-truths. 

really? because twisting the truth seems to be working in favor of people pushing for gun control.

really? because twisting the truth seems to be working in favor of people pushing for gun control.

Does it?  The AWB was allowed to expire.  49 states have some form of concealed carry on the books and the legislature in the 50th is sh*tting themselves trying to figure out how they're going to implement it.  Polls routinely put about 60% of Americans as either wanting existing gun laws reduced or unchanged.  Gun sales are at an all-time high; the firearm industry is still trying to figure out what all this hand-wringing about some so-called "recession" is all about, since they're going full-tilt. 

What few battles we've lost have happened because we don't control the narrative.  The anti-freedom camp controls the airwaves and almost exclusively sets the message.  When a pro-liberty guy does get a few precious seconds of airtime, every single one of them should be used to drive the truth.  When an army controls the airspace, they can engage in whatever leisurely tactics they want.  We are not that army, and our only chance to prevail is to use every break in the gun-grabbers' air cover to maximum effect.  We simply don't have the time to speak anything but the cold, hard, truth.

If it is hard for people to take hearing that teachers need to be armed to help prevent this sort of thing then let them have it full force so they can decide if it is the only right way to look at this. Speak the truth about how ineffectual gun laws are. And give examples how armed citizens STOP crime and people will listen. Not all. But if our side comes across as unwilling to talk about our side for the first few weeks then come at our detractors full force a few weeks later we will look like have flopped and will look like the idiots you are so afraid of us looking like. Let's face it, the truth is the more armed people we have in this country the less gun related crime we have. That should include teachers, principals, pilots, bus drivers, etc. The anti-gun lobby has no come back to this except to lie. Those who want to believe lies will do so no matter what. But those who care about the truth will see our side (an not laugh at us). We have no choice but to tell the truth and tell it point blank and tell it over and over again and not change our story. Otherwise there will be consequences to not doing so. We should be the ones putting the anti-gun lobby into the ropes and go on the offensive. By waiting for them to strike just so we can react will not gain us anything and will probably make us look weak. JMHO 

if we take that approach, i'd wager you wont like the results.

the truth does little good if people dont want to hear it. 

those who want to believe lies will continue to do so.  right now, that's too many for me to believe that telling people straight up that more people need to be armed is anything but a misstep. 

i think all of you put too much faith in the way the general public thinks.  but when the truth gets you laughed at, what are you really accomplishing?  nothing.  we should be the ones putting the anti gun lobby on the ropes.  but you're not going to do that with an argument that people were joking about us using because it was unfathomably over the top to them.  you're just going to inadvertently reinforce their beliefs. 

Obama is a staunch liberal.  he pretended to be a moderate in the 08 election.  that won him the election.  it was a lie, but it won him the election. 

sometimes, not acting like a hardline supporter of whatever it is you believe is the best way to accomplish said thing.  is it dishonest?  yeah.  but when the other side is being dishonest, sometimes, the truth isnt enough.  is it uncomfortable to acknowledge that maybe twisting things around might be better?  sure.  but i think its something we might have to embrace.

.

Does it?  The AWB was allowed to expire.  49 states have some form of concealed carry on the books and the legislature in the 50th is sh*tting themselves trying to figure out how they're going to implement it.  Polls routinely put about 60% of Americans as either wanting existing gun laws reduced or unchanged.  Gun sales are at an all-time high; the firearm industry is still trying to figure out what all this hand-wringing about some so-called "recession" is all about, since they're going full-tilt. 

What few battles we've lost have happened because we don't control the narrative.  The anti-freedom camp controls the airwaves and almost exclusively sets the message.  When a pro-liberty guy does get a few precious seconds of airtime, every single one of them should be used to drive the truth.  When an army controls the airspace, they can engage in whatever leisurely tactics they want.  We are not that army, and our only chance to prevail is to use every break in the gun-grabbers' air cover to maximum effect.  We simply don't have the time to speak anything but the cold, hard, truth.

im talking about right now.  the expiration of the Assault weapons ban was earlier, the concealed carry decisions were earlier, im talking about right now, after the shooting.  atm, the media is pumping the gun control stance, and from recent opinion polls, the public is eating it up.  that isnt at the legislative level, for sure, but that public opinion is a powerful thing.  everything you can do to gain support in public opinion is a good battle to win.  at this particular moment, it looks like we're losing the public opinion battle, a battle we didnt have to lose.  will it influence legislation?  i dont think so.  but getting the public on your side bodes well for many things, and it DOES eventually make its way to the legislative side.

of course, this is but a fleeting moment in the gun conversation, but winning where ever you can only furthers the cause, and losing opinion battles like these, even if it doesnt effect legislation directly, can still make things harder. 


the truth hurts.  and sometimes, it hurts your cause.

a president that made sense:
"You won't get gun control by disarming law-abiding citizens. There's only one way to get real gun control: Disarm the thugs and the criminals, lock them up and if you don't actually throw away the key, at least lose it for a long time... It's a nasty truth, but those who seek to inflict harm are not fazed by gun controllers. I happen to know this from personal experience." - Ronald Reagan

im talking about right now.  the expiration of the Assault weapons ban was earlier, the concealed carry decisions were earlier, im talking about right now, after the shooting.  atm, the media is pumping the gun control stance, and from recent opinion polls, the public is eating it up.  that isnt at the legislative level, for sure, but that public opinion is a powerful thing.  everything you can do to gain support in public opinion is a good battle to win.  at this particular moment, it looks like we're losing the public opinion battle, a battle we didnt have to lose.  will it influence legislation?  i dont think so.  but getting the public on your side bodes well for many things, and it DOES eventually make its way to the legislative side.

of course, this is but a fleeting moment in the gun conversation, but winning where ever you can only furthers the cause, and losing opinion battles like these, even if it doesnt effect legislation directly, can still make things harder. 


the truth hurts.  and sometimes, it hurts your cause.

Ok, let's game this out.  The grabbers know damn well that you believe more guns in the hands of the law-abiding makes us safer, because it's true.  So if you try to waffle around with mental health or some other foil, they're going to ask you about, point blank: Do you believe that more guns make us safer?  Checkmate.  Now you can either deny it, and doing so will be a clear affirmation that they're right and that civilian gun ownership is dangerous; or you can embrace it.  By fooling around playing games, you've backed yourself into a corner.  Whereas before the more guns-less crime argument would have been received as an unexpected, but logical, position, it's now viewed as being so crazy that even the people who believe it lie and pretend they don't. 

Just because the opposing team is playing dirty shouldn't make you compromise your ethics and stoop to their level. Also, when on the defensive, any subterfuge or half-truths or lies may be used by the opposing team as proof to further the opposing team's agenda. I wonder if anyone is really interested in trying to develop a compelling, rationale response, offline?

but where is the lie there?  focusing on mental health is not only focusing on a much larger issue than gun free zones, one that extends to much more than isolated mass shootings, but honestly, it had WAY more to do with the shooting than a gun free zone.  someone armed might have stopped the shooting early.  better mental health care and a woman who was smart enough to lock her guns up around a mentally ill man would have prevented it entirely. 

im coming at this not only from the perspective that its better politically to focus on the mental health instead of arming more people, but also because i personally believe its a FAR bigger issue than gun free zones, or arming more people.

an armed man might stopped a shooting early.  but why even let it come to that when you can prevent it with proper mental health care?  all these shootings may have happened in gun free zones, but even if they didnt, people will die or get hurt.  maybe, if we had better mental health, we wouldnt even be having these discussions.

that said, i dont even consider it telling a half truth.  i consider it telling the greater, more relevant truth.  i think you'll save far more lives looking at both the state of mental health care, and the how we as a nation seem to ignore the mentally ill until its too late.  this goes beyond mass shootings like this, and also the many many suicides from mentally ill people, who doctors, instead of giving proper treatment, threw them a prescription and drugged them up.

Ok, let's game this out.  The grabbers know damn well that you believe more guns in the hands of the law-abiding makes us safer, because it's true.  So if you try to waffle around with mental health or some other foil, they're going to ask you about, point blank: Do you believe that more guns make us safer?  Checkmate.  Now you can either deny it, and doing so will be a clear affirmation that they're right and that civilian gun ownership is dangerous; or you can embrace it.  By fooling around playing games, you've backed yourself into a corner.  Whereas before the more guns-less crime argument would have been received as an unexpected, but logical, position, it's now viewed as being so crazy that even the people who believe it lie and pretend they don't.

the problem is its already being perceived as so crazy. 

the only people who would believe more guns are a good thing are people you dont need to be talking to.

im not fooling around and playing games, i dont think this is a gun control issue to begin with. 

i stand by what i said earlier.  we are our own worst enemy.  and if we would realize that, as a whole, we'd have a much easier time moving forward with things.

the problem is its already being perceived as so crazy. 

the only people who would believe more guns are a good thing are people you dont need to be talking to.

im not fooling around and playing games, i dont think this is a gun control issue to begin with.

So if I say, "Man, we put armed guards in our banks, museums, sporting events, concerts, government buildings, and every place else that someone might try to break into or steal from; I can't fathom why we don't put armed guards outside the schools which house our most precious resource.", that sounds absolutely crazy?  I don't think it does.  I agree that anyone who automatically agrees that more guns equals less crime is part of the choir and I have no desire to preach to them.  I think the flaw in your logic arises when you assume that everyone who hears the argument thinks it's crazy.  The people who think it's just crazy aren't the ones we need to bother with, either; they're already drinking the Kool-Aid over on the Brady Bunch's Facebook page.  The ones in the middle are the ones we need to address, and calmly and logically presenting facts is the way to sway them to our side.

So if I say, "Man, we put armed guards in our banks, museums, sporting events, concerts, government buildings, and every place else that someone might try to break into or steal from; I can't fathom why we don't put armed guards outside the schools which house our most precious resource.", that sounds absolutely crazy?  I don't think it does.  I agree that anyone who automatically agrees that more guns equals less crime is part of the choir and I have no desire to preach to them.  I think the flaw in your logic arises when you assume that everyone who hears the argument thinks it's crazy.  The people who think it's just crazy aren't the ones we need to bother with, either; they're already drinking the Kool-Aid over on the Brady Bunch's Facebook page.  The ones in the middle are the ones we need to address, and calmly and logically presenting facts is the way to sway them to our side.

but people werent talking about having armed guards.  people were talking about arming teachers.  that's a HUGE jump.  if people were saying we need armed guards in front of schools, that would have been way better.  but people were talking about "if only the teachers were armed".

if you asked someone on the fence if we should have guards, they'd probably agree.  if you asked someone on the fence if the teachers should have been armed, i think you're pressing your luck a bit too much.

armed guards was NOT the original suggestion.  not here, not from what i heard from guys like the president of the Gun Owners Association.  that was what my post was initially talking about.  and the next string of posts below that were all about how the teachers should have been armed and how gun rights people should totally hang on to that, and how gun free zones were the culprit.  there's a huge difference in perception between suggestion we beef up security at schools and suggesting that teachers be armed, if you're talking to someone who isnt already on the side of gun rights.

so know, i dont think anyone would think it sounds crazy to have more security at schools.  but i still think that anti gun people as well as undecided people will think you sound crazy if you were to suggest that the teachers should have been armed.  which is exactly what some people have suggested, on tv interviews. 

.

I had to read the title like 10 times. Was it supposed to be something to be like "Who is are worst enemy?"

I had to read the title like 10 times. Was it supposed to be something to be like "Who is are worst enemy?"

"Who's OUR worst enemy?"