Loopy Pro: Create music, your way.

What is Loopy Pro?Loopy Pro is a powerful, flexible, and intuitive live looper, sampler, clip launcher and DAW for iPhone and iPad. At its core, it allows you to record and layer sounds in real-time to create complex musical arrangements. But it doesn’t stop there—Loopy Pro offers advanced tools to customize your workflow, build dynamic performance setups, and create a seamless connection between instruments, effects, and external gear.

Use it for live looping, sequencing, arranging, mixing, and much more. Whether you're a live performer, a producer, or just experimenting with sound, Loopy Pro helps you take control of your creative process.

Download on the App Store

Loopy Pro is your all-in-one musical toolkit. Try it for free today.

Texas 25th May 2022

1246789

Comments

  • @NeuM said:

    @CRAKROX said:

    @NeuM said:

    @CRAKROX said:

    @NeuM said:

    @CRAKROX said:

    @NeuM said:

    @CRAKROX said:

    @NeuM said:

    @SNystrom said:

    That list is truly astounding — and totally disgusting.

    I’ve been registered as “no party affiliation” for decades and after the republican non-response to these past two massacres, I will never again vote for a republican until they come to grips with reality and stop sucking the money-grubbing tit of the NRA.

    I love my country, but despise our spineless politicians.

    Maybe this hasn't been made clear to you, but the right of self-defense for individuals from tyrannical government is why the Second Amendment exists. And it isn't a right that was "given" to people. It is an inalienable right, backed up by our Constitution. It isn't something which exists so it can defend the ability of people to hunt deer or scare off thieves from the back porch with a shotgun blast aimed into the air (that last one is something the inept clown currently occupying the White House actually said).

    Would you have politicians confiscate the hundreds of millions of arms in the US? Good luck with that.

    Do you really believe that if it came down to the wire and a group of US citizens attempted to oppose the US government with whatever firearms they posses that they would last longer than 5 minutes considering the US government could mobilise one of the biggest and best equipped militaries in the world against them ?

    Are you also of the belief that an unarmed mob of rioters almost overthrew the US government on January 6th?

    That’s not answering the question and I don’t see the relevance but please feel free to answer one and explain the other…

    You just made a bad argument. Face it. Those on the Left would like all of America to believe an unarmed mob almost overthrew the government on January 6th. You just said that couldn’t happen. Well, which is it?

    If the “threat” on that day was simply the idiots breaking into the capitol buildings then my argument still stands.

    The problem was their disruption was being used by certain people as a distraction to try and justify dishonestly retaining their grip on government.

    However if today those same people who broke into the buildings did the same thing even if they were armed without the potential back up of their political leader half in and half out of the whitehouse it would be over in 5 minutes.

    You continue to make a bad argument.

    Democrats have been screaming that the riot on the 6th of January was an “insurrection” and that it was led by Donald Trump. A completely ridiculous argument, but if you believe there was an actual insurrection, then your own statement that a small group of people could not overthrow the government was a poorly conceived one.

    You’re comparing apple and oranges to muddy the water mate, the situations are different as well you know.

    If you want to make a point, please make it and then we can discuss. Right now, you’re arguing for the sake of arguing.

    No, that’s what you’re doing pulling politics etc into the mix, my position is clear and I’ve yet to see you answer how you think an armed group of citizens could oppose the U.S. military and win.

  • @purpan2 said:

    @NeuM said:

    @purpan2 said:

    @NeuM said:

    @purpan2 said:

    @NeuM said:

    @Grandbear said:
    Arming teachers? The fucking nerve, unbelievable. I guess this just makes clear how the logic behind this mess works.

    Right. Why should teachers have the ability to save their own lives. The nerve!

    You’re not a teacher. Teachers in your country have just died, by being shot by firearms, which you want everybody to have. Please, have the decency to let this rest for a while.

    I count several teachers among my relatives, so I know exactly what they were dealing with when they were teaching. Stop trying to control what other can and cannot say. It’s a really, really bad habit.

    Don’t be daft. I haven’t asked you to stop. I just politely ask you to defer your politics until a later date, out of respect for what happened. It’s obviously your choice.

    No need for you to lie. What you wrote is right there for anyone to see. And the failure to address difficult questions is why bad things continue to happen.

    Calling someone a liar is quite serious, particularly when it’s not true. Evidence, from what I’ve posted? If not, retraction would be polite.

    You were obviously trying to control what was being discussed and when. You should retract your comment.

  • @lasselu said:
    I happen to think that the gun laws in the US are far to liberal but...
    Here in Sweden we have very strict gun laws. That has in no way stopped criminals from having guns and shooting people with them. Just saying...

    The per capita deaths from guns in Sweden is a tiny fraction of the U.S.

  • @CRAKROX said:

    @NeuM said:

    @CRAKROX said:

    @NeuM said:

    @CRAKROX said:

    @NeuM said:

    @CRAKROX said:

    @NeuM said:

    @CRAKROX said:

    @NeuM said:

    @SNystrom said:

    That list is truly astounding — and totally disgusting.

    I’ve been registered as “no party affiliation” for decades and after the republican non-response to these past two massacres, I will never again vote for a republican until they come to grips with reality and stop sucking the money-grubbing tit of the NRA.

    I love my country, but despise our spineless politicians.

    Maybe this hasn't been made clear to you, but the right of self-defense for individuals from tyrannical government is why the Second Amendment exists. And it isn't a right that was "given" to people. It is an inalienable right, backed up by our Constitution. It isn't something which exists so it can defend the ability of people to hunt deer or scare off thieves from the back porch with a shotgun blast aimed into the air (that last one is something the inept clown currently occupying the White House actually said).

    Would you have politicians confiscate the hundreds of millions of arms in the US? Good luck with that.

    Do you really believe that if it came down to the wire and a group of US citizens attempted to oppose the US government with whatever firearms they posses that they would last longer than 5 minutes considering the US government could mobilise one of the biggest and best equipped militaries in the world against them ?

    Are you also of the belief that an unarmed mob of rioters almost overthrew the US government on January 6th?

    That’s not answering the question and I don’t see the relevance but please feel free to answer one and explain the other…

    You just made a bad argument. Face it. Those on the Left would like all of America to believe an unarmed mob almost overthrew the government on January 6th. You just said that couldn’t happen. Well, which is it?

    If the “threat” on that day was simply the idiots breaking into the capitol buildings then my argument still stands.

    The problem was their disruption was being used by certain people as a distraction to try and justify dishonestly retaining their grip on government.

    However if today those same people who broke into the buildings did the same thing even if they were armed without the potential back up of their political leader half in and half out of the whitehouse it would be over in 5 minutes.

    You continue to make a bad argument.

    Democrats have been screaming that the riot on the 6th of January was an “insurrection” and that it was led by Donald Trump. A completely ridiculous argument, but if you believe there was an actual insurrection, then your own statement that a small group of people could not overthrow the government was a poorly conceived one.

    You’re comparing apple and oranges to muddy the water mate, the situations are different as well you know.

    If you want to make a point, please make it and then we can discuss. Right now, you’re arguing for the sake of arguing.

    No, that’s what you’re doing pulling politics etc into the mix, my position is clear and I’ve yet to see you answer how you think an armed group of citizens could oppose the U.S. military and win.

    Were you the one who said this or not? Do you remember writing this?

    “Do you really believe that if it came down to the wire and a group of US citizens attempted to oppose the US government with whatever firearms they posses that they would last longer than 5 minutes considering the US government could mobilise one of the biggest and best equipped militaries in the world against them ?”

  • edited May 2022

    @NeuM said:

    @CRAKROX said:

    @NeuM said:

    @CRAKROX said:

    @NeuM said:

    @AudioGus said:

    @NeuM said:

    @AudioGus said:

    @purpan2 said:
    As a teacher, can I just say that I personally consider the idea of routinely arming teachers to be completely unacceptable, even as a politically motivated gesture. It’s particularly insensitive this week.

    Arming teachers sounds like arming every teller at the bank. A bit heavy handed.

    Why shouldn’t tellers be armed and trained? I’ll bet bank robberies would completely disappear if this was the case.

    I suppose there is an argument for every human having a gun issued to them at a certain age.

    That’s not an argument anyone is making anywhere. Not even Switzerland does that.

    It’s the end point of your arming teachers/Bank tellers etc logic though.

    No it isn’t.

    Yes it is, your logic is to arm teachers and or bank tellers and anyone else in peril, the point is if you make one target too difficult the “bad guys” simply pick a softer one.
    Then by your logic your solution is to arm them for their protection and the cycle starts again.

    Self-defense is an individual right. No one can be forced to do something they don’t want to do, but teachers who are not armed OR AT THE MINIMUM trained in the use of arms, they should not be employed by any public school.

    Does that go for Bank tellers too ? Gas Station staff, KFC counter staff etc ? By your logic those people should be able to defend themselves and their customers as they are all the type of places that are robbed with guns…

  • I feel profoundly sorry for you.

  • @espiegel123 said:

    @lasselu said:
    I happen to think that the gun laws in the US are far to liberal but...
    Here in Sweden we have very strict gun laws. That has in no way stopped criminals from having guns and shooting people with them. Just saying...

    The per capita deaths from guns in Sweden is a tiny fraction of the U.S.

    Arguing with someone actually from the country in question? Come on now.

  • edited May 2022

    @ExAsperis99 said:
    I feel profoundly sorry for you.

    I feel badly for the poor families of the victims of a lone lunatic’s actions. They had no way to protect themselves because of bad policies and an absent guard.

  • @NeuM said:

    @AlexY said:
    When was the last time someone killed a dozen people with a knife?

    More common than you’d care to think.

    From March 2010 to April 2021 in China, to stay on the country in the links you provided:

    About 15 knife attacks or 18 if you count those involving weapons like an axe, a cleaver, or the one with multiple attackers with knives, and two where the weapons aren't mentioned. I left out the one or two attacks involving explosives, and one with a hammer. I may be off, but I tried to be careful.

    ONe had an estimated 8 killed out of 65 .

    7 out of 14 in another one

    9 out of 19 in another one

    One attack had 9 deaths out of 20 attacked with a meat cleaver.

    One, with an undisclosed weapon killed 8 out of 10

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_attacks_in_China

    None of these even reaches a dozen, but I'm not trying to be pedantic.

    Obviously, china has a problem with mass stabbings, but it seems to me each instance is less deadly than the mass shootings at school here.

    But even disregarding all that, are we not in agreement that knives in general are less lethal?

  • edited May 2022

    @NeuM said:

    @CRAKROX said:

    @NeuM said:

    @CRAKROX said:

    @NeuM said:

    @CRAKROX said:

    @NeuM said:

    @CRAKROX said:

    @NeuM said:

    @CRAKROX said:

    @NeuM said:

    @SNystrom said:

    That list is truly astounding — and totally disgusting.

    I’ve been registered as “no party affiliation” for decades and after the republican non-response to these past two massacres, I will never again vote for a republican until they come to grips with reality and stop sucking the money-grubbing tit of the NRA.

    I love my country, but despise our spineless politicians.

    Maybe this hasn't been made clear to you, but the right of self-defense for individuals from tyrannical government is why the Second Amendment exists. And it isn't a right that was "given" to people. It is an inalienable right, backed up by our Constitution. It isn't something which exists so it can defend the ability of people to hunt deer or scare off thieves from the back porch with a shotgun blast aimed into the air (that last one is something the inept clown currently occupying the White House actually said).

    Would you have politicians confiscate the hundreds of millions of arms in the US? Good luck with that.

    Do you really believe that if it came down to the wire and a group of US citizens attempted to oppose the US government with whatever firearms they posses that they would last longer than 5 minutes considering the US government could mobilise one of the biggest and best equipped militaries in the world against them ?

    Are you also of the belief that an unarmed mob of rioters almost overthrew the US government on January 6th?

    That’s not answering the question and I don’t see the relevance but please feel free to answer one and explain the other…

    You just made a bad argument. Face it. Those on the Left would like all of America to believe an unarmed mob almost overthrew the government on January 6th. You just said that couldn’t happen. Well, which is it?

    If the “threat” on that day was simply the idiots breaking into the capitol buildings then my argument still stands.

    The problem was their disruption was being used by certain people as a distraction to try and justify dishonestly retaining their grip on government.

    However if today those same people who broke into the buildings did the same thing even if they were armed without the potential back up of their political leader half in and half out of the whitehouse it would be over in 5 minutes.

    You continue to make a bad argument.

    Democrats have been screaming that the riot on the 6th of January was an “insurrection” and that it was led by Donald Trump. A completely ridiculous argument, but if you believe there was an actual insurrection, then your own statement that a small group of people could not overthrow the government was a poorly conceived one.

    You’re comparing apple and oranges to muddy the water mate, the situations are different as well you know.

    If you want to make a point, please make it and then we can discuss. Right now, you’re arguing for the sake of arguing.

    No, that’s what you’re doing pulling politics etc into the mix, my position is clear and I’ve yet to see you answer how you think an armed group of citizens could oppose the U.S. military and win.

    Were you the one who said this or not? Do you remember writing this?

    “Do you really believe that if it came down to the wire and a group of US citizens attempted to oppose the US government with whatever firearms they posses that they would last longer than 5 minutes considering the US government could mobilise one of the biggest and best equipped militaries in the world against them ?”

    Yes but I’m not talking about the Jan incident although it seems you’re assuming I am ? The imaginary revolutionaries I’m talking about could be acting for any reason.

    Also the people on Jan 6th were acting with the implied support of Trump and his cronies who at that point were desperately looking for ways to release their grip on power.

    I’m talking about a group of individuals going against the military with no potential interference or back up from politicians.

  • @CRAKROX said:

    >

    However if today those same people who broke into the buildings did the same thing even if they were armed without the potential back up of their political leader half in and half out of the whitehouse it would be over in 5 minutes.

    I think they just caught the police with their pants down, and more importantly, the police treated them with kid gloves relative to how they would treat a different group if they tried to storm the capitol. No one fired a shot until it was very obvious the politicians were in danger.

  • edited May 2022

    @AlexY said:

    @NeuM said:

    @AlexY said:
    When was the last time someone killed a dozen people with a knife?

    More common than you’d care to think.

    From March 2010 to April 2021 in China, to stay on the country in the links you provided:

    About 15 knife attacks or 18 if you count those involving weapons like an axe, a cleaver, or the one with multiple attackers with knives, and two where the weapons aren't mentioned. I left out the one or two attacks involving explosives, and one with a hammer. I may be off, but I tried to be careful.

    ONe had an estimated 8 killed out of 65 .

    7 out of 14 in another one

    9 out of 19 in another one

    One attack had 9 deaths out of 20 attacked with a meat cleaver.

    One, with an undisclosed weapon killed 8 out of 10

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_attacks_in_China

    None of these even reaches a dozen, but I'm not trying to be pedantic.

    Obviously, china has a problem with mass stabbings, but it seems to me each instance is less deadly than the mass shootings at school here.

    But even disregarding all that, are we not in agreement that knives in general are less lethal?

    What was the point of this question: “When was the last time someone killed a dozen people with a knife?”

    Any attempts to suggest that if guns didn’t exist there would be no mass violence are just a bad way to approach this subject.

    If you want to deal with the reality of things, then you need to first think about the reality of things.

  • It’s been really hard for my mind to process these events that continuously happen in this country. It’s just so horrific. I’m so sick of guns being so available and mental health issues being so ignored

  • @CRAKROX said:

    @NeuM said:

    @CRAKROX said:

    @NeuM said:

    @CRAKROX said:

    @NeuM said:

    @CRAKROX said:

    @NeuM said:

    @CRAKROX said:

    @NeuM said:

    @CRAKROX said:

    @NeuM said:

    @SNystrom said:

    That list is truly astounding — and totally disgusting.

    I’ve been registered as “no party affiliation” for decades and after the republican non-response to these past two massacres, I will never again vote for a republican until they come to grips with reality and stop sucking the money-grubbing tit of the NRA.

    I love my country, but despise our spineless politicians.

    Maybe this hasn't been made clear to you, but the right of self-defense for individuals from tyrannical government is why the Second Amendment exists. And it isn't a right that was "given" to people. It is an inalienable right, backed up by our Constitution. It isn't something which exists so it can defend the ability of people to hunt deer or scare off thieves from the back porch with a shotgun blast aimed into the air (that last one is something the inept clown currently occupying the White House actually said).

    Would you have politicians confiscate the hundreds of millions of arms in the US? Good luck with that.

    Do you really believe that if it came down to the wire and a group of US citizens attempted to oppose the US government with whatever firearms they posses that they would last longer than 5 minutes considering the US government could mobilise one of the biggest and best equipped militaries in the world against them ?

    Are you also of the belief that an unarmed mob of rioters almost overthrew the US government on January 6th?

    That’s not answering the question and I don’t see the relevance but please feel free to answer one and explain the other…

    You just made a bad argument. Face it. Those on the Left would like all of America to believe an unarmed mob almost overthrew the government on January 6th. You just said that couldn’t happen. Well, which is it?

    If the “threat” on that day was simply the idiots breaking into the capitol buildings then my argument still stands.

    The problem was their disruption was being used by certain people as a distraction to try and justify dishonestly retaining their grip on government.

    However if today those same people who broke into the buildings did the same thing even if they were armed without the potential back up of their political leader half in and half out of the whitehouse it would be over in 5 minutes.

    You continue to make a bad argument.

    Democrats have been screaming that the riot on the 6th of January was an “insurrection” and that it was led by Donald Trump. A completely ridiculous argument, but if you believe there was an actual insurrection, then your own statement that a small group of people could not overthrow the government was a poorly conceived one.

    You’re comparing apple and oranges to muddy the water mate, the situations are different as well you know.

    If you want to make a point, please make it and then we can discuss. Right now, you’re arguing for the sake of arguing.

    No, that’s what you’re doing pulling politics etc into the mix, my position is clear and I’ve yet to see you answer how you think an armed group of citizens could oppose the U.S. military and win.

    Were you the one who said this or not? Do you remember writing this?

    “Do you really believe that if it came down to the wire and a group of US citizens attempted to oppose the US government with whatever firearms they posses that they would last longer than 5 minutes considering the US government could mobilise one of the biggest and best equipped militaries in the world against them ?”

    Yes but I’m not talking about the Jan incident although it seems you’re assuming I am ? The imaginary revolutionaries I’m talking about could be acting for any reason.

    Also the people on Jan 6th were acting with the implied support of Trump and his cronies who at that point were desperately looking for ways to release their grip on power.

    I’m talking about a group of individuals going against the military with no potential interference or back up from politicians.

    You’re wasting your time and mine now.

  • @AlexY said:

    @CRAKROX said:

    >

    However if today those same people who broke into the buildings did the same thing even if they were armed without the potential back up of their political leader half in and half out of the whitehouse it would be over in 5 minutes.

    I think they just caught the police with their pants down, and more importantly, the police treated them with kid gloves relative to how they would treat a different group if they tried to storm the capitol. No one fired a shot until it was very obvious the politicians were in danger.

    I agree 100%, if they had been Black Panthers or BLM activists I imagine the guns would have come out much faster.

  • @NeuM said:

    @AlexY said:

    @NeuM said:

    @AlexY said:
    When was the last time someone killed a dozen people with a knife?

    More common than you’d care to think.

    From March 2010 to April 2021 in China, to stay on the country in the links you provided:

    About 15 knife attacks or 18 if you count those involving weapons like an axe, a cleaver, or the one with multiple attackers with knives, and two where the weapons aren't mentioned. I left out the one or two attacks involving explosives, and one with a hammer. I may be off, but I tried to be careful.

    ONe had an estimated 8 killed out of 65 .

    7 out of 14 in another one

    9 out of 19 in another one

    One attack had 9 deaths out of 20 attacked with a meat cleaver.

    One, with an undisclosed weapon killed 8 out of 10

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_attacks_in_China

    None of these even reaches a dozen, but I'm not trying to be pedantic.

    Obviously, china has a problem with mass stabbings, but it seems to me each instance is less deadly than the mass shootings at school here.

    But even disregarding all that, are we not in agreement that knives in general are less lethal?

    What was the point of this question: “When was the last time someone killed a dozen people with a knife?”

    Any attempts to suggest that if guns didn’t exist there would be no mass violence are just a bad way to approach this subject.

    If you want to deal with the reality of things, then you need to first think about the reality of things.

    The point of the question was to point out that guns are more lethal since someone brought up knife and truck attacks. I nowhere suggested that there would be no mass violence. The suggestion was that mass death could be reduced.

  • @AlexY said:

    @CRAKROX said:

    >

    However if today those same people who broke into the buildings did the same thing even if they were armed without the potential back up of their political leader half in and half out of the whitehouse it would be over in 5 minutes.

    I think they just caught the police with their pants down, and more importantly, the police treated them with kid gloves relative to how they would treat a different group if they tried to storm the capitol. No one fired a shot until it was very obvious the politicians were in danger.

    Politicians were not in danger. They had already been moved off site. The armed guard there shot an unarmed woman trying to crawl through a hole for no reason.

  • @NeuM said:

    @CRAKROX said:

    @NeuM said:

    @CRAKROX said:

    @NeuM said:

    @AudioGus said:

    @NeuM said:

    @AudioGus said:

    @purpan2 said:
    As a teacher, can I just say that I personally consider the idea of routinely arming teachers to be completely unacceptable, even as a politically motivated gesture. It’s particularly insensitive this week.

    Arming teachers sounds like arming every teller at the bank. A bit heavy handed.

    Why shouldn’t tellers be armed and trained? I’ll bet bank robberies would completely disappear if this was the case.

    I suppose there is an argument for every human having a gun issued to them at a certain age.

    That’s not an argument anyone is making anywhere. Not even Switzerland does that.

    It’s the end point of your arming teachers/Bank tellers etc logic though.

    No it isn’t.

    Yes it is, your logic is to arm teachers and or bank tellers and anyone else in peril, the point is if you make one target too difficult the “bad guys” simply pick a softer one.
    Then by your logic your solution is to arm them for their protection and the cycle starts again.

    Self-defense is an individual right. No one can be forced to do something they don’t want to do, but teachers who are not armed OR AT THE MINIMUM trained in the use of arms, they should not be employed by any public school.

    woah, hardcore!

  • @NeuM said:

    @AlexY said:

    @CRAKROX said:

    >

    However if today those same people who broke into the buildings did the same thing even if they were armed without the potential back up of their political leader half in and half out of the whitehouse it would be over in 5 minutes.

    I think they just caught the police with their pants down, and more importantly, the police treated them with kid gloves relative to how they would treat a different group if they tried to storm the capitol. No one fired a shot until it was very obvious the politicians were in danger.

    Politicians were not in danger. They had already been moved off site. The armed guard there shot an unarmed woman trying to crawl through a hole for no reason.

    Source?

  • edited May 2022

    @AudioGus said:

    @NeuM said:

    @CRAKROX said:

    @NeuM said:

    @CRAKROX said:

    @NeuM said:

    @AudioGus said:

    @NeuM said:

    @AudioGus said:

    @purpan2 said:
    As a teacher, can I just say that I personally consider the idea of routinely arming teachers to be completely unacceptable, even as a politically motivated gesture. It’s particularly insensitive this week.

    Arming teachers sounds like arming every teller at the bank. A bit heavy handed.

    Why shouldn’t tellers be armed and trained? I’ll bet bank robberies would completely disappear if this was the case.

    I suppose there is an argument for every human having a gun issued to them at a certain age.

    That’s not an argument anyone is making anywhere. Not even Switzerland does that.

    It’s the end point of your arming teachers/Bank tellers etc logic though.

    No it isn’t.

    Yes it is, your logic is to arm teachers and or bank tellers and anyone else in peril, the point is if you make one target too difficult the “bad guys” simply pick a softer one.
    Then by your logic your solution is to arm them for their protection and the cycle starts again.

    Self-defense is an individual right. No one can be forced to do something they don’t want to do, but teachers who are not armed OR AT THE MINIMUM trained in the use of arms, they should not be employed by any public school.

    woah, hardcore!

    How is that “hardcore”? When parents hand over their kids to a school, they should expect them to be protected as if they were still in their own care.

  • @NeuM said:

    @AudioGus said:

    @NeuM said:

    @CRAKROX said:

    @NeuM said:

    @CRAKROX said:

    @NeuM said:

    @AudioGus said:

    @NeuM said:

    @AudioGus said:

    @purpan2 said:
    As a teacher, can I just say that I personally consider the idea of routinely arming teachers to be completely unacceptable, even as a politically motivated gesture. It’s particularly insensitive this week.

    Arming teachers sounds like arming every teller at the bank. A bit heavy handed.

    Why shouldn’t tellers be armed and trained? I’ll bet bank robberies would completely disappear if this was the case.

    I suppose there is an argument for every human having a gun issued to them at a certain age.

    That’s not an argument anyone is making anywhere. Not even Switzerland does that.

    It’s the end point of your arming teachers/Bank tellers etc logic though.

    No it isn’t.

    Yes it is, your logic is to arm teachers and or bank tellers and anyone else in peril, the point is if you make one target too difficult the “bad guys” simply pick a softer one.
    Then by your logic your solution is to arm them for their protection and the cycle starts again.

    Self-defense is an individual right. No one can be forced to do something they don’t want to do, but teachers who are not armed OR AT THE MINIMUM trained in the use of arms, they should not be employed by any public school.

    woah, hardcore!

    How is that “hardcore”?

    'Hardcore' in that you already posted data that supports that the vast majority are already safe, due to the relative infrequency of these events.

    When parents hand over their kids to a school, they should expect them to be protected as if they were still in their own care.

    I agree. I think society, laws, safeguards etc are in place and are likely effective, again given those numbers you posted. But alas there will never be perfect as long as people want to even cut bread.

  • @NeuM said:

    @AlexY said:

    @CRAKROX said:

    >

    However if today those same people who broke into the buildings did the same thing even if they were armed without the potential back up of their political leader half in and half out of the whitehouse it would be over in 5 minutes.

    I think they just caught the police with their pants down, and more importantly, the police treated them with kid gloves relative to how they would treat a different group if they tried to storm the capitol. No one fired a shot until it was very obvious the politicians were in danger.

    Politicians were not in danger. They had already been moved off site. The armed guard there shot an unarmed woman trying to crawl through a hole for no reason.

    She was being used as a human shield by her fellow half-a-minutemen.
    Roll the tape…

  • @AlexY said:

    @NeuM said:

    @AlexY said:

    @CRAKROX said:

    >

    However if today those same people who broke into the buildings did the same thing even if they were armed without the potential back up of their political leader half in and half out of the whitehouse it would be over in 5 minutes.

    I think they just caught the police with their pants down, and more importantly, the police treated them with kid gloves relative to how they would treat a different group if they tried to storm the capitol. No one fired a shot until it was very obvious the politicians were in danger.

    Politicians were not in danger. They had already been moved off site. The armed guard there shot an unarmed woman trying to crawl through a hole for no reason.

    Source?

    After investigating this a bit more, it appears not everyone left immediately. However, rioters AND those who just walked in unopposed (essentially trespassing) never came face-to-face with any of the representatives.

  • @NeuM said:

    @AlexY said:

    @NeuM said:

    @AlexY said:

    @CRAKROX said:

    >

    However if today those same people who broke into the buildings did the same thing even if they were armed without the potential back up of their political leader half in and half out of the whitehouse it would be over in 5 minutes.

    I think they just caught the police with their pants down, and more importantly, the police treated them with kid gloves relative to how they would treat a different group if they tried to storm the capitol. No one fired a shot until it was very obvious the politicians were in danger.

    Politicians were not in danger. They had already been moved off site. The armed guard there shot an unarmed woman trying to crawl through a hole for no reason.

    Source?

    After investigating this a bit more, it appears not everyone left immediately. However, rioters AND those who just walked in unopposed (essentially trespassing) never came face-to-face with any of the representatives.

    Because she was stopped, though.

  • @espiegel123 said:

    @lasselu said:
    I happen to think that the gun laws in the US are far to liberal but...
    Here in Sweden we have very strict gun laws. That has in no way stopped criminals from having guns and shooting people with them. Just saying...

    The per capita deaths from guns in Sweden is a tiny fraction of the U.S.

    True, but far too many still die from gun violence...not sure if this is a numbers game...

  • @AudioGus said:

    @NeuM said:

    @AudioGus said:

    @NeuM said:

    @CRAKROX said:

    @NeuM said:

    @CRAKROX said:

    @NeuM said:

    @AudioGus said:

    @NeuM said:

    @AudioGus said:

    @purpan2 said:
    As a teacher, can I just say that I personally consider the idea of routinely arming teachers to be completely unacceptable, even as a politically motivated gesture. It’s particularly insensitive this week.

    Arming teachers sounds like arming every teller at the bank. A bit heavy handed.

    Why shouldn’t tellers be armed and trained? I’ll bet bank robberies would completely disappear if this was the case.

    I suppose there is an argument for every human having a gun issued to them at a certain age.

    That’s not an argument anyone is making anywhere. Not even Switzerland does that.

    It’s the end point of your arming teachers/Bank tellers etc logic though.

    No it isn’t.

    Yes it is, your logic is to arm teachers and or bank tellers and anyone else in peril, the point is if you make one target too difficult the “bad guys” simply pick a softer one.
    Then by your logic your solution is to arm them for their protection and the cycle starts again.

    Self-defense is an individual right. No one can be forced to do something they don’t want to do, but teachers who are not armed OR AT THE MINIMUM trained in the use of arms, they should not be employed by any public school.

    woah, hardcore!

    How is that “hardcore”?

    'Hardcore' in that you already posted data that supports that the vast majority are already safe, due to the relative infrequency of these events.

    When parents hand over their kids to a school, they should expect them to be protected as if they were still in their own care.

    I agree. I think society, laws, safeguards etc are in place and are likely effective, again given those numbers you posted. But alas there will never be perfect as long as people want to even cut bread.

    Most ARE safe and will never see violence like those unfortunate families in Uvalde. But why should the training and arming of some, if not all teachers not be used in the rare instance something happens? Why do people have insurance policies? To cover very rare events.

  • @JeffChasteen said:

    @NeuM said:

    @AlexY said:

    @CRAKROX said:

    >

    However if today those same people who broke into the buildings did the same thing even if they were armed without the potential back up of their political leader half in and half out of the whitehouse it would be over in 5 minutes.

    I think they just caught the police with their pants down, and more importantly, the police treated them with kid gloves relative to how they would treat a different group if they tried to storm the capitol. No one fired a shot until it was very obvious the politicians were in danger.

    Politicians were not in danger. They had already been moved off site. The armed guard there shot an unarmed woman trying to crawl through a hole for no reason.

    She was being used as a human shield by her fellow half-a-minutemen.
    Roll the tape…

    No, she chose to crawl through an opening that was too small for most of the others around her.

  • edited May 2022

    @lasselu said:

    @espiegel123 said:

    @lasselu said:
    I happen to think that the gun laws in the US are far to liberal but...
    Here in Sweden we have very strict gun laws. That has in no way stopped criminals from having guns and shooting people with them. Just saying...

    The per capita deaths from guns in Sweden is a tiny fraction of the U.S.

    True, but far too many still die from gun violence...not sure if this is a numbers game...

    I am all for making things safer, so I am ok with reducing gun violence and other types of violence towards that goal.

  • edited May 2022

    @AlexY said:

    @NeuM said:

    @AlexY said:

    @NeuM said:

    @AlexY said:

    @CRAKROX said:

    >

    However if today those same people who broke into the buildings did the same thing even if they were armed without the potential back up of their political leader half in and half out of the whitehouse it would be over in 5 minutes.

    I think they just caught the police with their pants down, and more importantly, the police treated them with kid gloves relative to how they would treat a different group if they tried to storm the capitol. No one fired a shot until it was very obvious the politicians were in danger.

    Politicians were not in danger. They had already been moved off site. The armed guard there shot an unarmed woman trying to crawl through a hole for no reason.

    Source?

    After investigating this a bit more, it appears not everyone left immediately. However, rioters AND those who just walked in unopposed (essentially trespassing) never came face-to-face with any of the representatives.

    Because she was stopped, though.

    So that unarmed small woman was a direct threat to that armed guard? That doesn’t seem right.

  • edited May 2022

    @NeuM said:

    @AlexY said:

    @NeuM said:

    @AlexY said:

    @NeuM said:

    @AlexY said:

    @CRAKROX said:

    >

    However if today those same people who broke into the buildings did the same thing even if they were armed without the potential back up of their political leader half in and half out of the whitehouse it would be over in 5 minutes.

    I think they just caught the police with their pants down, and more importantly, the police treated them with kid gloves relative to how they would treat a different group if they tried to storm the capitol. No one fired a shot until it was very obvious the politicians were in danger.

    Politicians were not in danger. They had already been moved off site. The armed guard there shot an unarmed woman trying to crawl through a hole for no reason.

    Source?

    After investigating this a bit more, it appears not everyone left immediately. However, rioters AND those who just walked in unopposed (essentially trespassing) never came face-to-face with any of the representatives.

    Because she was stopped, though.

    So that unarmed small woman was a direct threat to that armed guard?

    She was told to stop where she was by an officer of the law with a handgun drawn and aimed, and she had a mob of people behind her ready to follow. Idk, when an officer of the law gives me a command, I don't disobey, especially when they have a drawn gun.

This discussion has been closed.