olofscience

That doesn't invalidate the point I made. Are you sure you know the rules of debate?

You could also look up the meaning of "Amendment". (you might be shocked to hear, the 2nd amendment wasn't in the original Constitution! It was...an amendment.)

Arnulfo Reyes, now could we move on please? You've lost this one.

Well practically the entire country here is a "gun free zone"...it's good. I highly recommend it.

Survival rate that YOU have now. I live in Europe in a country where there hasn't been a school shooting in more than 25 years. 50% is a much better chance, you're right - but in my opinion still terrible. It's only your children's lives at stake anyway, who am I to say it's not a good idea to gamble with those odds?

50/50 is terrible. And that's assuming the teacher and gunman are evenly matched. School shooters tend to prepare for their crimes.

Slim king is doing something, and now there's probably stuff on his computer screen that he thinks is 'egg'. Look away, kids.

In this hypothetical situation you just described, it looks like a lone teacher against a school shooter in his room. So, with equal weapons, training, and protection the teacher has 50% chance of surviving. I thought the hypothetical school shooter would be instantly outnumbered? Or are you proposing at least 2 armed teachers per classroom?

I seem to remember the police greatly outnumbered attackers in Uvalde too. How did that turn out?

And just to add, 'virtually all' just shows a bad understanding of mathematics. If there is a gunman, and you have a gun: assuming you and the gunman have the same amount of training assuming you have the same weapon assuming you have the same body protection Then the probability of stopping the gunman would be 50%. If any of the variables tilt the other way, then your chances of surviving (and stopping the gunman) diminish. That's pretty far from "virtually all". Proof: in the 2022 Buffalo mass shooting, there was ONE good guy with a gun. He fired at the attacker. He died. So unless you have a much better gun, much better armour, and much better training than a mass shooter, then you're pretty far from being able to stop 'virtually ALL' of these shootings (or even surviving). But then again, every gun supporter I meet has fantasies of being able to jump in slow motion while firing their weapon killing the bad guys. Because they're special. I wonder how these armed teachers stack up, where do they find time to do the training? Going to class every day in full body armour must also get difficult after a while.

Teachers' job is to teach - not act like Rambo in case of a school shooting. In Parkland, a guard whose job WAS to shoot the gunman, didn't do it: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-48521988 In Uvalde, the police whose JOB was to stop the gunman, also didn't. https://www.nytimes.com/article/uvalde-texas-school-shooting.html So these people were PAID to stop gunmen and still did a terrible job. How much better will underpaid, overstressed, undertrained teachers perform these feats of law enforcement?

I think it's called sarcasm.

Claims to not watch Fox. check. Claims to not be Republican. check. Makes argument that CO2 concentrations at the time of dinosaurs means it's fine, check. Makes up straw man argument no one said, check. Doesn't seem like it's brent, but brainwashing has produced an almost perfect carbon copy! Impressive.

Huh, reminds me of someone.

Yep, people in a highly stressful, underpaid occupation are also being armed to the teeth. Yup, no problem with that at all...

Jesus christ Trumpists are now pro-Taliban...you couldn't make it up! What next, they'll be pro-Putin? Oh wait... Osama was literally releasing videos from Afghanistan back in 2001... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IHInbQcyg2Y

Has anyone seen a 'gotcha' or was it just usual brent saying his usual schtick, then saying something that didn't make sense at all?

Okay, boomer

Doing nothing doesn't take much intelligence or courage. It's what dead people do. It's what those police at the Uvalde shooting did. You may still have 25 years to go, but it seems you've already kicked the bucket in the mental sense

So you're saying that warming would be good? But you said that it's not getting warmer and it's good! You should say "I hate that it's NOT getting warmer!" Or are you losing track of the arguments that liberal democrat that lives rent-free in your mind is making?

He's actually arguing with himself, which is why it rarely makes sense to us. He won though!

So your favourite is something I didn't say? Figures.

The cold hard fact is, most of the time you don't even read the contents of the links you post here. Nor you have the ability to do simple maths. Remember when I asked you to make a prediction about the global temperature anomaly, and you didn't know what it was or how it was calculated? Despite claiming that you know what global temperatures were doing And all you have is making fun of a wishful prediction I made that still has 3 years to go...could you at least find one that's in the past?

It's just the usual - they never, ever, EVER, take responsibility for anything. Did you see how Conservatives in Australia blamed Greens/environmentalists for the fires in 2019/2020 despite the Greens never ever having been in power? Or how Labour is still being blamed for the UK's problems despite them being out of power for the past 12 years? It was all that leaded gasoline, I think. How else can you explain old men behaving like toddlers?

Whoever he is, at least we know Slim King isn't Rhys the nanothermite guy. Osama bin Laden, however, was making his video press releases from Afghanistan at the time of 9/11. You can actually still find those videos, and the Taliban at the time acknowledged he was there. But yeah sure...the Pentagon only took CNN's advice on where to attack... /s