Go Ann Coulter

[DontTreadOnI]

Ann COulter's logic is partly correct and partly wrong. She mentions that a guard would get chot first or he would be the one that goes beserk. Well, same would be true for a teacher. If a BG was to go into a school knowing that teachers can be armed would he not shoot every adult first?

Other points aside, you just compared taking out one armed guard to taking out multiple (lets say at least thirty in a small school building) randomly armed adult teachers that are spread across campus. I don't see the resemblance or how taking out one armed person is just as hard as taking out tens of randomly armed adults.

Maybe that's just me though.

Edit:

School shootings that could be prevented by a CC'ing teacher are very rare indeed.

Also a presumptuous logical fallacy. Are you under the impression that just one teacher would be allowed to cc or something?

[DefensiveCarry.com]

[suntzu]

Other points aside, you just compared taking out one armed guard to taking out multiple (lets say at least thirty in a small school building) randomly armed adult teachers that are spread across campus. I don't see the resemblance or how taking out one armed person is just as hard as taking out tens of randomly armed adults.

Maybe that's just me though.

Edit:



Also a presumptuous logical fallacy. Are you under the impression that just one teacher would be allowed to cc or something?

The point I was making (and I was speaking mostly from the insights of folks that do not want teachers CC'ing) is that folks think that the chances are better that an idiot teacher would injure a student with an ND than there is of them protecting students from a mass killer which is very rare.

And you are just making up a number when you say that there would be 30 people armed in a small school. Where did you come up with that number?

And lest we forget my last statement which was:

Just presenting the logic from the other side....

You can think what ever you want, you can be correct, but if you do not understand the logic from the other side then you can't convince them to change their ways.

[SpringerXD]

You can think what ever you want, you can be correct, but if you do not understand the logic from the other side then you can't convince them to change their ways.

Huh? Logic on the other side? When did this happen? Do you have a link?

[suntzu]

Huh? Logic on the other side? When did this happen? Do you have a link?

I assume that was sarcasm LOL....but you bring up a point that many folks here can not get a grasp of. There is a defference between having flawed logic and having a bad premise. One can have a premise that there should be gun control and can logically and intelligently argue it. Doesn't mean it is correct or that you, me, or the peanut gallery likes it.

I have seen pro gun folks argue using the premise that there should be no gun control and they sound like blooming idiots. But I agree with the premise. The point is to argue your premise intelligently and dispassionatlety......which sometimes does not happen on both sides.

[SpringerXD]

I assume that was sarcasm LOL....but you bring up a point that many folks here can not get a grasp of. There is a defference between having flawed logic and having a bad premise. One can have a premise that there should be gun control and can logically and intelligently argue it. Doesn't mean it is correct or that you, me, or the peanut gallery likes it.

I have seen pro gun folks argue using the premise that there should be no gun control and they sound like blooming idiots. But I agree with the premise. The point is to argue your premise intelligently and dispassionatlety......which sometimes does not happen on both sides.

Yeah, it was sarcasm and irony. :)

I agree with what you're saying. The less emotion an argument has, the more perceived validity it usually carries. It's a double-edged sword, because we're very passionate about gun rights and the emotion comes out too easily sometimes. I'm personally guilty of many counts of this.

[tony1990]

I just listened to the video of Ann Coulter and I loved it. He really nailed it.

[rottkeeper]

She is spot on.... Nothing more to say... just spot on.

[johnny51966]

GD she is good....

[KoriBustard]

I know this post is late to the origin of this thread. However, I saw the Coulter interview with Hannity and I'm also familiar with the study by Landes and Lott which is considered, even by many gun opponents, and the single best study ever conducted on gun ownership and crime. So when I saw the video, I wondered how well her points reflected the conclusions of that study (i.e., that pro concealed carry laws are the single best policy for reducing public shootings). Well, John Lott (co-author of that seminal study) posted her interview on his personal website. So, there you have it I guess. Go Ann!

John Lott's Website: Coulter discusses my work with Landes on Hannity