|
|
Post by subdjoe on Oct 22, 2008 23:37:42 GMT -5
Never mind, Mink. When you say things like "guns are more for a professionals like a police officer or a soldier" I see that you are beyond reason.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mink on Oct 22, 2008 23:52:48 GMT -5
Never mind, Mink. When you say things like "guns are more for a professionals like a police officer or a soldier" I see that you are beyond reason. Whatever subdjoe, I am not a gun enthusiast nor anti-gun, but I do have an opinion regardless of your demeaning insult. I am sure you won't respond to anymore of my concerns on this thread. I'll live with that. |
|
|
|
Post by The New Guy on Oct 22, 2008 23:58:01 GMT -5
In regards to a gun on school property, I can see a gun saving many lives used in defense of a person who has mentally lost it and threatening many lives. dang it, mink. i was so plesantly surprised to see you say something sensible like this that i wanted to exalt you for it. unfortunately, i just smited you less than an hour ago for something else you said. ;D but it turns out that the rest of what you wrote was utterly ridiculous that i didn't have to worry about the smite/exalt thing afterall! ;D a teacher with a gun has about a 50% chance of hitting the attacker and 50% chance of hitting a student. a teacher without a gun has 0% chance of hitting the attacker. i'll take the chance. |
|
|
|
Post by Mink on Oct 23, 2008 0:00:46 GMT -5
Ok......this would make a good survey, no?
|
|
|
|
Post by jgaffney on Oct 23, 2008 11:54:48 GMT -5
What does it say about our society where we have to debate whether a teacher should be allowed to carry a gun? They are not prison guards! It's not the fault of the gun makers or the law-abiding gun owners that kids, who have been barraged with music videos about the gangsta life, suddenly think it's OK to carry to school and settle any disturbance with gunplay.
A friend of mine on the RPPD was telling me about a gang shooting he had to deal with. They were transporting one of the gang bangers to the hospital, with a bullet in his leg. The kid was talking about how surprised he was that it hurt so much. He had seen so many movies where someone takes a hit and keeps moving. He thought he would be able to do the same.
The level of handgun violence in our society is not a reflection of the availability of guns, but more a reflection of the debasement of our cultural values. I won't even start to point fingers on that subject.
The answer is not to ban or severly restrict all handguns - only the law-abiding citizens will pay attention to that. The criminal element will continue to obtain weapons the way they always have, and will be less encumbered because they can be sure that the victims are not armed.
|
|
|
|
Post by JustMyOpinion on Oct 23, 2008 12:07:53 GMT -5
What does it say about our society where we have to debate whether a teacher should be allowed to carry a gun? They are not prison guards! It's not the fault of the gun makers or the law-abiding gun owners that kids, who have been barraged with music videos about the gangsta life, suddenly think it's OK to carry to school and settle any disturbance with gunplay.
A friend of mine on the RPPD was telling me about a gang shooting he had to deal with. They were transporting one of the gang bangers to the hospital, with a bullet in his leg. The kid was talking about how surprised he was that it hurt so much. He had seen so many movies where someone takes a hit and keeps moving. He thought he would be able to do the same.
The level of handgun violence in our society is not a reflection of the availability of guns, but more a reflection of the debasement of our cultural values. I won't even start to point fingers on that subject.
The answer is not to ban or severly restrict all handguns - only the law-abiding citizens will pay attention to that. The criminal element will continue to obtain weapons the way they always have, and will be less encumbered because they can be sure that the victims are not armed. I agree with your post. I don't want teachers toting guns for god's sake. Can you all imagine a 12 year old strung out on meth over powering a teacher and blasting kids because the voices told him to? Do any f you know how strong these kids are especially on drugs like meth? Not only that I think if teachers carried it would be an invitation for some gangsta wanna-be to prove his position by attempting to confiscate a gun. INSANE! The real question is, how do we make it more difficult for criminals to obtain guns? |
|
|
|
Post by saunterelle on Oct 23, 2008 12:29:39 GMT -5
You've hit the nail on the head JMO. The notion of having a gun in every teacher's desk drawer is ridiculous.
Where do criminals obtain their guns? I would think the majority originate from gun shops, gun shows, or are purchased on the internet. Correct me if I'm wrong, but very few illegal guns are shipped from overseas. Therefore, if we ban semi-automatic weapons, and only allow guns that force the shooter to reload after a few shots, we will eventually see a decrease in automatic/Semi-automatic weapons on our streets. Imagine a gangster trying to use a pistol in a drive by, it wouldn't happen.
Guns don't last forever. Like everything else, they break down over time. Limit the capabilities of guns now and we will see results in the future. If school shooters could only get a gun that fire 2 shots before having to be reloaded, we might have seen only two people killed instead of 33.
|
|
|
|
Post by subdjoe on Oct 23, 2008 13:08:24 GMT -5
"Can you all imagine a 12 year old strung out on meth over powering a teacher and blasting kids because the voices told him to?"
Or grabbing the scissors from the teachers desk and going on a slashing and stabbing rampage because the voices told him to do it.
All the horrible "what ifs" take place in the progressive mandated criminal empowerment zones. You never hear of them happening at gun stores, shooting ranges, gun shows or other places that the thugs KNOW that their potential victims are armed. You don't hear of them in shopping malls that allow holders of CCWs to carry. You don't hear of them in places where there is a decent chance that the thug will face an armed citizen who can fight back. You only hear of them in "safe" places like schools, post offices, shopping malls that prohibit citizens from exercising an enumerated and protected right.
This issue isn't about guns, it is about the failed social experiment known as The Great Society where the concept of personal responsibility was stamped out and the powers that be decided that it was better to punish and restrict the honest citizen in an attempt to appear to be "doing something" about a problem that is the natural result of the lack of responsibility. Most citizens are decent, honest people who can be trusted with the means of deadly force. I agree that the thugs, felons, those judged to be mentaly incomeptent should be prevented from owning firearms. But, do we do away with the rights of the many to keep the few from having firearms?
As I have asked in many other threads, if guns are the problem, then why do most of the people high in the powerful and well financed anti-rights lobby either have guns themselves or have armed guards with them? Sholdn't DiFi, Boxer, the Clintons, Rosie, Schumer, Kennedy, Jesse, Barry and Al all give up their guns and armed guards to set an example?
As for the idea that "guns are more for a professionals like a police officer or a soldier" I have to say hogwash. Go back and read the history of our Republic, read the comments by the founders and framers about firearms in the hands of the common citizen. There are no magic or mystical powers bestowed on "professionals like a police officer or a soldier" that make them any safer with firearms than any other citizen.
Do I think everyone should own a firearm? No. There are some who do not have the self discipline and self control that I think responsible gun owners should have. Usually they have made statements like "well I just know that if "I" had a gun, I would shoot my neighbor for (insert some petty reason like music too loud)." Obviously such people should not have firearms. Neither should they be allowed to drive. They all managed to look both confused and offended when I agree that in their cases their rights should be abridged and they should not have guns, but please don't project their own lack of control onto everyone else.
|
|
|
|
Post by subdjoe on Oct 23, 2008 13:31:03 GMT -5
You've hit the nail on the head JMO. The notion of having a gun in every teacher's desk drawer is ridiculous. Where do criminals obtain their guns? I would think the majority originate from gun shops, gun shows, or are purchased on the internet. Correct me if I'm wrong, but very few illegal guns are shipped from overseas. Therefore, if we ban semi-automatic weapons, and only allow guns that force the shooter to reload after a few shots, we will eventually see a decrease in automatic/Semi-automatic weapons on our streets. Imagine a gangster trying to use a pistol in a drive by, it wouldn't happen. Guns don't last forever. Like everything else, they break down over time. Limit the capabilities of guns now and we will see results in the future. If school shooters could only get a gun that fire 2 shots before having to be reloaded, we might have seen only two people killed instead of 33. No one is saying that we need to force every teacher to keep a gun. Pure anti-civil rights hyperbole and hysteria. The idea is to allow those who want to to carry. Very simple. All a matter of personal choice. Last I saw, the left is all about personal choice. You are wrong, there are lots of firearms that are smuggled in from overseas. And most criminals obtain their firearms through illegal means. They don't walk into gun shops or gun shows and buy their guns. You are correct that guns don't last forever. But a well made firearm is good for a few hundred years with a little care. Some people in the North-South Skirmish Assoc. are using original Civil War era Spencers and Henrys. And original Colt and Remington (and other makes) revolvers. My wife and I have WWI era rifles that function perfectly and are very accurate. To carry your idea further and into other dangerous items, we should have governers on cars so they can't go over 25 mph. Think of the tens of thousands of lives we would save every year. And the hundreds of thousands of serious injuries. For an example of the utility of allowing citizens to have full capacity semi auto firearms, look to the Rodney King Riots and the Korean shop owners who saved their shops, and lives, by showing themselves armed and willing to protect what they own. You would put the weak and frail at the mercy of the strong and the mob. And, what would you do when crime goes up? And there is no decrease in "gun crime?" What is your next draconian restriction? This is what I meant when I said that "reasonable restrictions" was code for an outright ban. When the "reasonable" ones don't do what the antis claim they will do, they then push for further "reasonable" restrictions, until only the politicians and their influential friends will have firearms. Look at Chicago - an alderman forgot to register his firearms. So they pushed a special extention to allow him to not be in violation. Yes, it was written so that anyone within a certain time frame who had not reregistered. But, if it hadn't been a grand high mucky-muck who forgot to reregister, his guns would have been confiscated and destroyed. |
|
|
|
Post by The Big Dog on Oct 23, 2008 13:47:01 GMT -5
Let's clear a couple of misconceptions....
* If teachers were allowed, based on their choice, to carry concealed, the operative word is "concealed". Meaning no one knows that there is a firearm present unless it is needed in the gravest extreme. What the students don't know and can't see isn't going to be an issue, now is it?
* Back when I was a kid, and before, lots of high schools actually owned firearms and kept them on premise. Many had rifle teams as part of their sports programs (a precious few still do) and many had JROTC programs. Part of JROTC training used to be the manual of arms, drill and << shudder >> marksmanship. Don't know if those are still a part of JROTC or not, but they should be. Those JROTC programs most often used surplus Model of 1903 or Model of 1917 military rifles firing the very powerful .30-06 military cartridge. While those rifles are in a sense antiquated bolt action repeaters, they were state of the art at one time and are still capable of putting an enemy away... after all Sgt. Alvin C. York in WWI killed about three dozen Germans and captured a couple hundred more single handed in one action with nothing more than a 1917 Enfield pattern rifle and a captured Luger pistol.
Long before there was this social stigma driven by the utopian dreamers about evil firearms, kids and firearms (and adult supervision) mixed quite readily. Mr. Justice Scalia has written that he used to ride the New York subway back and forth to the range from his boyhood home with a .22 target rifle in hand, and no one ever gave him a second look. He was on a junior rifle team in school.
Do I want every teacher carrying? Absolutely not. However there is a body of evidence that demonstrates clearly that armed teachers, and in colleges armed students, can successfully interdict an active shooter situation long before the police arrive, get geared up and get into action. Case in point was the principal of a school in Arkansas who, when he heard shots being fired at his school, retreived his pistol from his car in the parking lot. He confronted the shooter and the boy gave up on the spot.
Finally, JMO opined...
Thats a good question... which our political leaders have tried to answer with... "make it tougher for law abiding citizens to obtain one". As we can see in example after example that approach does nothing but disarm the honest citizen.
So if you have some ideas that will work, I'd like to see them.
|
|
|
|
Post by saunterelle on Oct 23, 2008 13:56:24 GMT -5
Interesting info. I'll have to reconsider my position, although I still don't see the need for semi-auto weapons.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Big Dog on Oct 23, 2008 14:02:37 GMT -5
And I don't necessarily expect you to see the need, nor do I necessarily expect you to change your position upon reconsideration (although I do appreciate the heck out of you being willing to re-examine). It's your opinion on an issue of choice, and you are entitled to it.
I ask, and have been asking, only for you to respect my enumerated rights equally as I respect yours. So long as I don't infringe on your rights I believe I have equal call to expect you not to infringe on mine.
|
|
