O/T feel sick inside - CT Elementary shooting

[novakjr]

Originally Posted by Runscott

No offense, but that wasn't what you previously asked, and you just put an awful lot of words in my mouth that I didn't say.

Also, I really have no idea what a stun gun is, does, or how effective it would be in deterring anything - I've never given it any thought. My original response was simply to give you examples of mentally ill killers who are still alive and could be questioned, and the type of thinking you might encounter if you tried to do so.

I respectfully need to bow out of re-joining the 'guns or not in the school' debate. I've already stated my thoughts in detail.

It's exactly what I previously asked. We were both obviously on different pages though. It's happens. My comment was specifically geared towards those who ultimately wanted to kill themselves, and not toward the "just make as big a mess as possible" people.. Those people will still be out there, but stun-guns could help reduce the carnage.

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by novakjr

It's exactly what I previously asked.

No, it is not. The first question has to do specifically with a stun gun. I answered it. You then put words in my mouth, re-stating your question to involve apprehension that might or might not involve a stun gun. As I said before, I know almost nothing about stun guns and don't want to get into the gun debate further. I responded to your additional questions out of politeness, but I'm really not interested in going off on a tangent involving a straw man that I am not. I'm through responding to this line of discussion, as it's getting ludicrous.

"If their ultimate goal is to commit suicide, then wouldn't the strong possibility of being disabled and apprehended using a stun gun, be more of a deterrent."

"You're telling me, that if there's a good chance that they'll be apprehended before being able to kill themselves, that they'd still do it anyways?"

[novakjr]

Originally Posted by Runscott

No, it is not. The first question has to do specifically with a stun gun. I answered it. You then put words in my mouth, re-stating your question to involve apprehension that might or might not involve a stun gun. As I said before, I know almost nothing about stun guns and don't want to get into the gun debate further. I responded to your additional questions out of politeness, but I'm really not interested in going off on a tangent involving a straw man that I am not. I'm through responding to this line of discussion, as it's getting ludicrous.

"If their ultimate goal is to commit suicide, then wouldn't the strong possibility of being disabled and apprehended using a stun gun, be more of a deterrent."

"You're telling me, that if there's a good chance that they'll be apprehended before being able to kill themselves, that they'd still do it anyways?"

Like I said, we were obviously on different pages. The original statement was perhaps less specific, due to implied connection with previous statements. You're original answer was perfectly appropriate without being taken in that context.