Gun Control

Conga3 said:
BIGREDIOWAN said:
I don't know what the right answer is as far as the gun control debate is concerned. I'm not a believer in making it so strict that your average "Joe" can't get a weapon. You only keep the weapons out of the law abiding citizens hands and criminals and nut jobs will always find a way to get them. Just the way it is..............................I am a firm believer in taking schools out of the "weapon free zone" for people that have a CCW. No, I don't think little Joey should be able to carry a knife on the grounds if he wants to, screw him. I'm talking about people that have went through the process to get a CCW and this would further allow the argument on whether to arm teachers or not to happen. It's already happened in a small district in Texas, but they started talking about it last October! I believe that teachers should be allowed to carry if the district allows it, state law allows it, and they attend the proper training to show they are proficient with their firearm. It's the ONLY way to help stop the violence on some level and even then, it won't stop it completely. There are several layers to stop these events from occurring and it starts with our nations mental health care. So start there as that has long-term effects, you might see the effects 10 to 15 years down the road or longer, but our mental health care is a joke! People that have CCW's aren't the ones shooting places up and doing a bunch of stupid crap. They've done the things necessary to be able to carry their weapons to protect themselves and their families and aren't going to screw that up. I would much rather have a teacher there with a weapon that can do something about it than wait the few minutes for a cop to show up and do something about it. You can save A LOT of lives in those few minutes....................In Sandyville from the time the officers were dispatched to the time they arrived was 3 minutes, at 5 minutes they were notified of shooting occurring in the office and at 7 minutes the event was over.
Click to expand...
No matter how well this idea is presented or supported by facts, there are a huge number of people who are simply not mentally wired to accept the argument.

For some, the accepted truth is : Gun crimes are caused by guns...if you reduce the number of guns, gun crimes will also be reduced. To maximize the effect, just bans guns altogether. Going the opposite direction, and increasing the number of people with guns can only lead to more gun crimes/death.

It's simple logic which requires the very least amount of faith to be put into their fellow citizens.

Unfortunately it also is the position with the least regard for individual freedom/responsibility.
Click to expand...
Couldn't agree with you more...........

 
teachercd said:
teachercd said:
Conga3 said:
Judging by your user name I'm assuming you're a teacher. How would you feel about yourself or a few of your colleagues being trained with a pistol and being armed at school? Think it's too risky?
Click to expand...
I don't think it is too risky, I just think that it is not realistic. I think a lot of people have this romanticized idea of what it would be like: Bad guy comes in, pulls out his gun and is ready to start shooting up the place but the hero teacher pulls out his/her piece first, takes aim and BAM, takes down the would be killer.

I just don't think it is realistic. I mean, cops that are on the job for 30 years often times never pull their gun out once, most people that do use a gun in the "line of fire" are not going to be such an amazing shot that they kill the person with one shot, it would probably end up killing some innocent kid. Plus, I mean, you are really asking a lot of the teacher too. You are basically asking them "Will you take a life", I don't know, it just seems like that would be really really tough.

I really don't have a good answer for it. Sorry!
Click to expand...
It's not a very romantic concept at all. It's as simple as a deadly "threat" in responsible hands is used to repel or otherwise subdue an attacker by whatever means necessary and called for.

It doesn't have to play out how you envision it in some sort of "Hollywood" style gun battle. It'd probably look something more like this :

Click to expand...
I must not have made my point clear or you wouldn't be pointing out the video is of a robbery...and that's my bad for failing to communicate over the internets.

My point was : While you're contending "success" of the teachers repelling or putting down a shooter would hinge on some sort of "Western Movie" style of gun battle that others are "romantically" envisioning, I'm contending it'd be more like the video...where a threat is met with someone with the capability of repelling or stopping them amid the general chaos. Success could come in different forms and is certainly not incumbent on a teacher being able to stop the first shot of the shooter.

I measure "success" by saving even a single innocent life.

Success could also be measured in the deterrence factor, although that's harder to quantify.

 
14k of those homicides were caused by weapons that "should be banned".

This is going to take more than just a simple one patch to fix the hole. There are a combination of problems that need to be fixed if we are to curb gun violence.

 
You understand that 14k was total homicides. 8k with firearms

so we ban hands, feet and fists?? jus messin' whichu

Nothing humorous about homicides except look at the glaring disparity between handguns and rifles/shotguns 6.2k to 700.

Handguns...........Question is: What is the favorite weapon of certain factions of the population to commit a homicide?

Handguns...........Question is: What is the favorite weapon of rawhide to use as personal defense and for just shootin' paper on occasion? (targets)

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Bye Bye Big XII said:
A little off topic, but do you guys agree with some states allowing teachers to carry a gun?
Click to expand...
In school? No.

They don't have the training necessary to make the appropriate decisions.

Also a little off topic . . . but I am rather amused that some of the same political actors who decry our public educators as incompetent/overpaid/etc. are now saying that those same educators should carry firearms into our schools. It's curious.

 
Cut the pay of politicians :-D

Use it to train certain teachers that can be designated for a school to carry.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I say we use our military to benefit public safety. 2 Armed military members, who pass background tests, stand guard in every school. You wouldn't have to relocate, as many cities/towns have a few vets/current military personnel in them. Its a thought, and all you have to do is raise their pay just a bit to compensate their duties, if at all. I wouldn't force anyone to do this, but leave it open to those who want to serve our communities better. I have a handful of military friends in Omaha who would stand guard in a heartbeat to protect little ones and teachers.

 
If I had to guess, they (gov't) will tag certain types of guns "military grade". That tag will make them and the ammo unavailable for the common citizen. I have my fair share of legally obtained firearms, and have seen the effects of the "military grade" firearms can make on mass quantity of targets (as I am sure some other posters here military/police have). Does any common citizen need one of these types of weapons? IMO, no. I can/will try protect my household/family with my CCW 9mm handgun and/or my 12gu shotgun I use for hunting.

I wouldn't have an issue with the "military grade" ban if the gov't did it.

 
I honestly really don't care if "military grade" guns are banned. I only use guns for sport and hunting.

However, what "military grade" guns were used in this tragedy?

 
Back
Top