# Stopping School Shootings



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

I cannot find the text for the new proposed gun restrictions. Can you?

Can you show us in the text of the new proposed gun restrictions how they would have stopped the Uvalde shooting? 

Thanks


----------



## KC Rock (Oct 28, 2021)

Here are the gun control proposals Biden laid out in his speech


President Biden is delivering remarks from the White House on guns and the recent mass shootings in the country. Follow here for the latest news updates.




www.cnn.com


----------



## poppy (Feb 21, 2008)

I haven't seen them either but, rest assured, they will not prevent one death. As always, all they will do is make it harder on innocent people. School shootings are a relatively new thing. Many kids took guns in their vehicles to school back in my day so we could go hunting after school and, in junior high, we could take them in the school and leave them in the office till school got out. That proves it is not a gun issue at all. It is something else causing them, and probably several things. After decades now of school shooting, there is no excuse why schools are still having shootings. Modifications to school entrances would stop 99% of them. Ask yourself why we rarely hear of shootings in court houses, police depts, Congress, etc. It's because they all have security but many schools are still vulnerable and politicians don't seem to care about that. Then there are the unanswered questions about the shootings. How did this last shooter get the money to buy those weapons he purchased legally? We now know he worked at a fast food joint. One of the guns he bought was an AR-15 style rife made my Daniels Defence. Those are high end guns. If he wanted it to shoot up a school, he could have gotten a rifle just like it for 1/3 the price. The narrative from the cops keeps changing. Their first version said a teacher left a back door propped open that he went in, but cameras clearly show the teacher shut the door after getting something from his/her vehicle and that door automatically locks when closed.


----------



## poppy (Feb 21, 2008)

KC Rock said:


> Here are the gun control proposals Biden laid out in his speech
> 
> 
> President Biden is delivering remarks from the White House on guns and the recent mass shootings in the country. Follow here for the latest news updates.
> ...


I will agree with one thing Biden said. Mental health should be improved to stop the destruction. It might even prevent a serial plagiarizer, liar, and demented old man from destroying our country.


----------



## Hiro (Feb 14, 2016)

You omitted his pedophilia.


----------



## KC Rock (Oct 28, 2021)

Figure the same psych analyst should be used at the liquor store. Lots of deaths from drunk people.


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

KC Rock said:


> Figure the same psych analyst should be used at the liquor store. Lots of deaths from drunk people.


They should sue the car makers for billions every time a drunk driver kills somebody.
Then they should try to take away the cars of everybody who didn't do it.
I think they should ban high capacity rental trucks the nutjobs use to run over crowds of people or blow up federal buildings.


----------



## poppy (Feb 21, 2008)

KC Rock said:


> Figure the same psych analyst should be used at the liquor store. Lots of deaths from drunk people.


If they were serious about drunk driving deaths, they would raise the age to get a driver's license to 21 and limit assault vehicle speed to 10 miles per hour.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

Politics. When they want to do some crooked stuff, they give it a title that everyone can agree on. If you want to kick back millions to your campaign supporters, call it "Covid Relief Fund". They spent 7% of those trillions in checks to every man, woman and child and we were happy. Strike while the iron is hot. The Texas School Shooting provides an opportunity to set up the framework for banning certain arms. For most people, those that don't own any guns or aren't interested themselves in owning an assault weapon, a ban doesn't matter. But that is just the framework for further restrictions. I expect a ban on all semi-automatic weapons will be next. Then certain calibers.

It is the same for background checks. No one cares that none of the mass murderers would have shown up on any red flag background check. The idea of keeping weapons out of the hands of crazy people is something we can all agree on. So, we'll willingly allow a background framework to be set up. But once it is in place, what is the criteria? You might agree that ex-felons, that were convicted of a gun crime, would be unable to buy a gun. Perhaps, if there has been a restraining order filed against you. Membership in any radical White supremacy group? Ex-Military? Browser history that shows visits to survivalist web sites? More than a thousand rounds of ammo? Agreeing to a background check restriction is dangerous when you don't know what the criteria is now or what it will be in the future.


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

The problem with any gun control measure is that it seeks to advance a political position.

I don't know how to word it, but what if the law said something like "person A, knowing that person B has threatened and is likely to commit a gun crime, fails to notify the authorities. If person B does commit a gun crime you (person A) may be charged as an accessory".


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

MoonRiver said:


> The problem with any gun control measure is that it seeks to advance a political position.
> 
> I don't know how to word it, but what if the law said something like "person A, knowing that person B has threatened and is likely to commit a gun crime, fails to notify the authorities. If person B does commit a gun crime you (person A) may be charged as an accessory".


We become a nation of snitches like the old East Germany


----------



## Wolf mom (Mar 8, 2005)

90% of Guns Used in Crime Obtained Illegally


A DOJ report finds that the vast majority of guns used in criminal activity were obtained illegally.



patriotpost.us





90% 90% 90%......obtained illegally, used in crime!

The closest figures I could find about those shot using illegal guns was 30% - but that's with _all_ guns - not just illegal guns.

Before mine were lost in a boating accident, none were registered. I believe once you are on a government list, your guns will be the first to be confiscated.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

With the second amendment there will be the occasional tragedy, without it there will be eventual genocide.


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

HDRider said:


> We become a nation of snitches like the old East Germany


I believe it may already be a crime. Maybe only after the fact.

I don't have a problem with it. If I heard someone say they were planning on committing a crime and shooting people, I would call the police and not feel even the tiniest bit of guilt.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

MoonRiver said:


> I believe it may already be a crime. Maybe only after the fact.
> 
> I don't have a problem with it. If I heard someone say they were planning on committing a crime and shooting people, I would call the police and not feel even the tiniest bit of guilt.


Think it through. If some yahoo says it as a joke, you become obligated by law to turn him in. Sure it is a sick joke. But we all know that guy

Knowing when to notify the authorities is a judgement call. Making it mandatory by law just makes us a little bit more stupid. We can't get much stupider and still be allowed to drive ourselves.


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

HDRider said:


> Think it through. If some yahoo says it as a joke, you become obligated by law to turn him in. Sure it is a sick joke. But we all know that guy
> 
> Knowing when to notify the authorities is a judgement call. Making it mandatory by law just makes us a little bit more stupid. We can't get much stupider and still be allowed to drive ourselves.


That's the exact excuse many have made. Almost every school shooter has either told someone directly or posted it on a website. people then say, I thought he was joking.

Unless I knew the person well and was sure the threat was meaningless, I would report them. It's not my judgment in question but the person making the threat.


----------



## nodak3 (Feb 5, 2003)

I don't have a problem with gun registration or with banning some equipment and guns from the general public, but neither do I think that will solve the problem. The guy in Uvalde might just as easily have waited for the kids to head to the bus or out for recess and run over them with the vehicle.

What we need to do though imho is get very serious about dealing with crazy, and recognize we truly have an epidemic of crazy. We had a ton of crazy pre covid. Some did not handle the lockdowns or stress well during covid. And of course the docs are very aware of the high number of post covid psych problems, many of those affecting moods, control of behavior, and critical thinking skills.

We absolutely must get real about the dangers of insanity. We must get real about violence in general and deal with it very harshly. Time to stop giving a time out to the bully kids like the problem in the schools at Wentzville Mo. Charge them with assault, kick their butts out, and if it continues lock them up. Same with the guys who think they have a right to beat up their wives or girlfriends, the child abusers, the road ragers, the barroom brawlers.

In fact, peer pressure needs to come to bear on all those who treat other human beings with disrespect. Get rude in a restaurant they should have a burly bouncer toss you out on your tin ear. Start cussing out someone in wally world, out you go. And I think these mass shooters, once convicted, should be very publicly hanged and that in short order.

Your mileage may vary.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

*Summary*
In recent years, mass violence associated with men who identify as involuntary celibates (incels) has been of increasing concern. Incels engage in an online community where misogyny and incitements to violence against women are prevalent, often owing to the belief that women are denying them a ‘right’ to sex. 

Indeed, inceldom can be considered a form of extremism. Information released about the prepetrators of incel-associated violence consistently suggests that mental disorder is a contributory factor and may increase vulnerability to engaging with the incel community. Depression, autism and personality disorder are particularly relevant. 

To date, there has been little research into the mental health of incels and how, in some, this contributes to violence. This article considers the associations between mental disorder and inceldom, including the risk factors for incel-related violence, and makes recommendations for best practice in risk assessment and clinical intervention.








Incels, violence and mental disorder: a narrative review with recommendations for best practice in risk assessment and clinical intervention | BJPsych Advances | Cambridge Core


Incels, violence and mental disorder: a narrative review with recommendations for best practice in risk assessment and clinical intervention




www.cambridge.org


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Unfortunately, on any given day in places all around the world, you’re likely to find at least one story in the news about a teen behaving violently. Whether it's a gang fight or a violent act against a stranger, the reasons behind the violence vary. 

Quite often, there are a variety of factors that come together to increase the likelihood that a teen will become violent. 








The Biggest Reasons Some Teens Turn Violent


Whether it's getting into a physical fight or it's a school shooting, there are many different factors that place teens at risk of behaving violently.




www.verywellmind.com


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

To stop school shootings, we first have to find out "why".
Why are these people killing kids?
If we know why, then we can know "who".
You can take away everybody's guns, but until you solve the "Why" and the "Who", you won't stop the killing.
Without guns, they will turn to bombs, arson, swords, clubs, vehicles.
It won't stop until the media stops glorifying the killing and making celebrities of the murderers.
It's not the guns.


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

I listened to multiple paid talking head "consultants" last night on tv frantically opposing "'arming teachers". They emphasized their position as if school employees would be *forced to carry a gun.*
Now, I can speculate that they were uninformed and ignorant, which makes me wonder why these cable channels are paying for their viewpoints.
Or, I can surmise that they are just lying and using their position as a means to influence the uninformed and ignorant with the cable channels encouragement.
Anyways....

A national survey of more than 1,000 likely voters in the 2022 election reveals that most Americans are in favor of training teachers to use firearms to protect themselves and students from a shooter like the one who killed fourth graders and two of their teachers at an elementary school in Texas.

The Convention of States Action and the Trafalgar Group poll found 57.5 percent of American voters said that preventing properly trained school teachers and school staff from carrying a firearm makes schools more dangerous. Some 37.4 percent said that scenario makes schools “much more dangerous.”

And almost half of Democrats agree — 48.2 percent believe that preventing properly trained school teachers and school staff from carrying a firearm makes schools more dangerous, whereas 41.3 percent say less dangerous.


Some 57.1 of Independent voters agree and 67.5 percent of Republicans agree.

And the youngest demographic who took part in the poll — 18 to 24-year-olds— are in favoring of arming teachers by wide margin:

61.8 percent of 18-24-year-old voters believe that preventing properly trained school teachers and school staff from carrying a firearm makes schools more dangerous.
55.8 percent of 25-34-year-old voters believe that preventing properly trained school teachers and school staff from carrying a firearm makes schools more dangerous.
59 percent of 35-44-year-old voters believe that preventing properly trained school teachers and school staff from carrying a firearm makes schools more dangerous.
60 percent of 45-64-year-old voters believe that preventing properly trained school teachers and school staff from carrying a firearm makes schools more dangerous.
Mark Meckler, president of Convention of States Action, said about the poll:


> No shooting at a school is going to be stopped by gun control laws. They are going to be stopped by a variety of fairly simple on-site measures, including arming law-abiding citizens–in this case specifically teachers–and empowering them to protect our children, schools, and communities. A majority of voters see this clearly, despite the relentless propaganda by people who want to confiscate the guns of law-abiding citizens.
> Self-defense is a bedrock of this Republic and our Constitution. The Founders were clear that defending those we love is the responsibility of the citizen first. So many deaths have been prevented by armed citizens, so why would we question the voluntary training and arming of teachers to protect those we love and care for the most?


Surveys were conducted May 25 through May 29 of likely voters.


----------



## muleskinner2 (Oct 7, 2007)

We have found ways to protect banks, airports, and court houses. Apply the same security measures to schools, and successful school shootings would be unheard of. There would always be some crazy who would try, but if they couldn't get into the building they would fail. A Sheriff in Florida said it best, "If you attempt to harm our children, we will kill you graveyard dead". There is no excuse why their aren't at least two armed, trained, competent guards at every school in America. We gave billions of dollars worth of state of the art military grade equipment to the worst enemy we have ever had. And we can't keep a deranged teenager out of a restricted area.


----------



## Vjk (Apr 28, 2020)

Cornhusker said:


> To stop school shootings, we first have to find out "why".
> Why are these people killing kids?
> If we know why, then we can know "who".
> You can take away everybody's guns, but until you solve the "Why" and the "Who", you won't stop the killing.
> ...


Why? How about breakdown of the traditional family? Disparaging of personal responsibility? Trivializing integrity?


----------



## homesteadforty (Dec 4, 2007)

HDRider said:


> We become a nation of snitches like the old East Germany


Stasi


----------



## KC Rock (Oct 28, 2021)

The problem is some people can't handle imperfection. No law will be 100% effective. If assault weapons are banned, 

and they should be. And if ownership is illegal and the AK needs to be turned in, and they should be..there will still be

gun killings. But they will be fewer. And their won't be as many massacres of school kids... period


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

KC Rock said:


> The problem is some people can't handle imperfection. freedom.
> 
> No law will be 100% effective. If assault weapons are banned,
> 
> ...


I fixed your first sentence for you.
The rest of your post is an opinion, but you are correct, no law is bulletproof.
My AR 15s are not assault weapons, nor are they weapons of war, so I have no worries of anyone knocking on my door.


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl (May 13, 2013)

KC Rock said:


> The problem is some people can't handle imperfection. No law will be 100% effective. If assault weapons are banned,
> 
> and they should be. And if ownership is illegal and the AK needs to be turned in, and they should be..there will still be
> 
> gun killings. But they will be fewer. And their won't be as many massacres of school kids... period


You may be able to posit that there will be fewer mass shootings, but you can’t substantiate the claim that there will be fewer mass killings, or even fewer school massacres.

The foundational event that started the modern narcissist’s mass-murder-suicide trend, the Columbine massacre, was planned as a bombing. The guns were only brought along as an afterthought to keep the first-responders at standoff and unable to attend to the victims the murderers had injured with their bombs.

The bombs failed because the murderers were of sub-par intelligence and did not have access to as robust a knowledge source as the internet now provides. The murderers ended up shooting the students once their original, potentially MUCH more deadly, plan fell apart.

Even with a full and total gun ban in effect, and 100% of the existing guns confiscated, the Columbine massacre, as planned, could still be carried out. A suicidal narcissist could easily build a set of bombs (and much more sophisticated ones than were used in Columbine) and DIY a couple basic firearms for the end-phase standoff.

Gun bans may reduce the number of shootings, but they will do nothing to reduce the number of murders. Why do you care so much more about the mode of murder than the murders themselves? Why wouldn’t you rather do something that actually saves lives than focusing on something that would just change the way that a few of the victims die?


----------



## link30240 (Aug 22, 2021)

Because leftists are overly emotional and irrational. They react without thought or reason. 

The truth is these acts of violence are a direct result of liberal policies. Strictly because they cant think things through with rational thought. They give no thought on what their policies do to society and continually chase bad policy with more bad policy.


----------



## poppy (Feb 21, 2008)

GTX63 said:


> I listened to multiple paid talking head "consultants" last night on tv frantically opposing "'arming teachers". They emphasized their position as if school employees would be *forced to carry a gun.*
> Now, I can speculate that they were uninformed and ignorant, which makes me wonder why these cable channels are paying for their viewpoints.
> Or, I can surmise that they are just lying and using their position as a means to influence the uninformed and ignorant with the cable channels encouragement.
> Anyways....
> ...


I am surprised support is that high, but probably 98 percent of objectors are city dwellers Government has become their god and they dutifully fall in line with what their leaders tell them is best for them Zero ability to reason or common sense ask the question here and 95 percent will say it is a great idea.


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl (May 13, 2013)

GTX63 said:


> I listened to multiple paid talking head "consultants" last night on tv frantically opposing "'arming teachers". They emphasized their position as if school employees would be *forced to carry a gun.*
> Now, I can speculate that they were uninformed and ignorant, which makes me wonder why these cable channels are paying for their viewpoints.
> Or, I can surmise that they are just lying and using their position as a means to influence the uninformed and ignorant with the cable channels encouragement.


Our own resident pedoindoctrination specialist, @SLFarmMI , used exactly that same tactic when debating the topic after the Florida shooting a couple years back. She refused to argue why teachers shouldn’t be allowed to be armed, and insisted on arguing why teachers shouldn’t be forced to be armed.

After pointing out, literally at least a dozen times, the strawman nature of her argument, given that no one was arguing for the mandatory armament of teachers, she finally embraced her strawman and said that those of us who argued for the option for teachers to arm themselves really meant that we wanted to force all teachers to be armed, and that we’d resort to that eventually. Then she stopped commenting on that topic altogether.

Some months later, a popular firearms blog posted a teachers’ Union newsletter that provided talking points on arming teachers, and most/all of what SL had to say on the topic matched, word for word, the newsletter’s talking points.

Much like how we see the montages of corporate media sources saying exactly the same things as each other, the special interest organizations operate from scripts handed to them by their benefactors. Unfortunately, those scripts then end up in the mouths of those interest groups’ useful idiots. They don’t actually have to understand what they’re saying. They just see what they think is a good point, and begin repeating it with all the air in their lungs. Consideration is not a prerequisite.


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

GTX63 said:


> A national survey of more than 1,000 likely voters in the 2022 election reveals that most Americans are in favor of training teachers to use firearms to protect themselves and students from a shooter like the one who killed fourth graders and two of their teachers at an elementary school in Texas.
> 
> The Convention of States Action and the Trafalgar Group poll found 57.5 percent of American voters said that preventing properly trained school teachers and school staff from carrying a firearm makes schools more dangerous. Some 37.4 percent said that scenario makes schools “much more dangerous.”
> 
> And almost half of Democrats agree — 48.2 percent believe that preventing properly trained school teachers and school staff from carrying a firearm makes schools more dangerous, whereas 41.3 percent say less dangerous.


I would make it a requirement for each school to have a minimum percentage of teachers trained and carrying. I think this should be done at the state level. If the federal government allocates funds to help cover the expense fine, but not a requirement.

Teachers who are trained and carry will get paid an additional amount. They will get hiring preference over applicants not willing to carry. Same with school administration staff. If a school does not meet the minimum percentage, then they must hire armed security to take their place out of their existing budget.

If liberal states choose to not have armed staff, fine.


----------



## link30240 (Aug 22, 2021)

My question for anyone not wanting armed teachers. If you cant trust a teacher with a gun around your kids then how they heck can you trust the same teacher to mold your childs mind?

Many, many, many teachers need to go! We should be much more vigilant with whom we allow around our children, if we had been doing this we wouldnt be in this mess now!


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

muleskinner2 said:


> We have found ways to protect banks, and court houses. Apply the same security measures to schools, and successful school shootings would be unheard of. There would always be some crazy who would try, but if they couldn't get into the building they would fail. A Sheriff in Florida said it best, "If you attempt to harm our children, we will kill you graveyard dead". There is no excuse why their aren't at least two armed, trained, competent guards at every school in America. We gave billions of dollars worth of state of the art military grade equipment to the worst enemy we have ever had. And we can't keep a deranged teenager out of a restricted area.


My high school had over 2000 students and at least 8 doors. In the south, some schools have open-air walkways between classrooms. Doors are open for kids to access the athletic fields. Some kids had work-study programs where they left the school at noon. Others arranged to have study hall last period and were allowed to leave early. 

There is usually a door near the parking lot for kids wh drive. There is at least 1 freight door. I have seen many schools using trailers for the overflow students. There might be baseball practice, track practice, tennis, etc all happening at the same time with kids going in and out of the school.

My point is most schools are not just a building where everyone can be locked inside. They can be made much more secure than they currently are, but just like the shooting during the Congressional softball practice, someone with a rifle doesn't need to get inside the school.


----------



## NEPA (Feb 21, 2015)

KC Rock said:


> The problem is some people can't handle imperfection. No law will be 100% effective. If assault weapons are banned,
> 
> and they should be. And if ownership is illegal and the AK needs to be turned in, and they should be..there will still be
> 
> gun killings. But they will be fewer. And their won't be as many massacres of school kids... period


Now turn your statement around. I have owed firearms for most of my 61 years on this planet. Many of my firearms were passed down through my family, and I will pass them along when I go to my eternal home. None of my firearms has ever harmed anybody (but I am prepared to use them for defense of me and mine if required). Please explain how many lives would be saved by me sacrifice?


----------



## homesteadforty (Dec 4, 2007)

link30240 said:


> My question for anyone not wanting armed teachers. If you cant trust a teacher with a gun around your kids then how they heck can you trust the same teacher to mold your childs mind?


I can monitor and correct errant information... not neccessarily so with an errant bullet. I know many people that I trust with almost all things... except guns. Just as I know many I trust with guns but not neccissarily other things (like say driving).



> Many, many, many teachers need to go! We should be much more vigilant with whom we allow around our children, if we had been doing this we wouldnt be in this mess now!


You simply can't get rid of all the teachers with different political, social or religious views than yours. If we could do that, there wouldn't be two teachers left in each county.

So, as a practical, feasible matter you are advocating arming many teachers that you vehemently oppose.


----------



## link30240 (Aug 22, 2021)

[QUOTE="homesteadforty, post: 8897518, member: 28617
You simply can't get rid of all the teachers with different political, social or religious views than yours. If we could do that, there wouldn't be two teachers left in each county.
[/QUOTE]

Im not against different "political, social or religious views" Im against radical ideas confusing our kids with blatant lies and twisted truths. Such as this gender BS and everything being racist crap our kids are being bombarded with. Some of these teachers are radicalizing kids. these are the ones Im saying need to be removed.


----------



## Vjk (Apr 28, 2020)

The techfacists are hard at work. I was trying to find anything about an elementary school that was burned down in New Hampshire a long time ago by the janitor. After school started he went around and chained all the doors shut and set off a bunch firebombs he had previously set up in the basement. I believe that is still the biggest mass murder in US history, but thoroughly buried the tech mafia.


----------



## homesteadforty (Dec 4, 2007)

MoonRiver said:


> I would make it a requirement for each school to have a minimum percentage of teachers trained and carrying.


Let's concede this point but continue to the next logical step... which teachers should be armed? any who wish to be? What kind of training should they have... firearms safety classes? a yearly clip fired at paper targets? tactical courses?

I had many, many, teachers that were excellent at what they did that in hindsight I would never wanted them to have been armed.


----------



## Vjk (Apr 28, 2020)

link30240 said:


> [QUOTE="homesteadforty, post: 8897518, member: 28617
> You simply can't get rid of all the teachers with different political, social or religious views than yours. If we could do that, there wouldn't be two teachers left in each county.


Im not against different "political, social or religious views" Im against radical ideas confusing our kids with blatant lies and twisted truths. Such as this gender BS and everything being racist crap our kids are being bombarded with. Some of these teachers are radicalizing kids. these are the ones Im saying need to be removed.
[/QUOTE]
Any teacher that doesn't know the difference between a boy and a girl should be sent to GITMO. I'm sure ISIS will be happy to teach them the difference.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

KC Rock said:


> The problem is some people can't handle imperfection. No law will be 100% effective. If assault weapons are banned,
> 
> and they should be. And if ownership is illegal and the AK needs to be turned in, and they should be..there will still be
> 
> gun killings. But they will be fewer. And their won't be as many massacres of school kids... period


Whats the definition of an "assault" weapon?


----------



## poppy (Feb 21, 2008)

GunMonkeyIntl said:


> Our own resident pedoindoctrination specialist, @SLFarmMI , used exactly that same tactic when debating the topic after the Florida shooting a couple years back. She refused to argue why teachers shouldn’t be allowed to be armed, and insisted on arguing why teachers shouldn’t be forced to be armed.
> 
> After pointing out, literally at least a dozen times, the strawman nature of her argument, given that no one was arguing for the mandatory armament of teachers, she finally embraced her strawman and said that those of us who argued for the option for teachers to arm themselves really meant that we wanted to force all teachers to be armed, and that we’d resort to that eventually. Then she stopped commenting on that topic altogether.
> 
> ...


I am befuddled as to why a teacher who opts not to carry a gun would fret over a teacher who did carry, even though he/she probably wouldn't know it. Are those teachers afraid to go to restaurants because someone might be carrying?


----------



## homesteadforty (Dec 4, 2007)

Vjk said:


> Any teacher that doesn't know the difference between a boy and a girl should be sent to GITMO. I'm sure ISIS will be happy to teach them the difference.


Such profound intellect... nothing I say could possibly improve such astute commentary.


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

homesteadforty said:


> Let's concede this point but continue to the next logical step... which teachers should be armed? any who wish to be? What kind of training should they have... firearms safety classes? a yearly clip fired at paper targets? tacitical courses?
> 
> I had many, many, teachers that were excellent at what they did that in hindsight I would never wanted them to have been armed.


That would be for each state to decide. If they are paid an extra $5k per year, you could probably pick the best.


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

homesteadforty said:


> Let's concede this point but continue to the next logical step... which teachers should be armed? any who wish to be? What kind of training should they have... firearms safety classes? a yearly clip fired at paper targets? tacitical courses?


Those who volunteer for approved training. Ex military/leo/security, licsensed and FFLs would have preference.
Training can be a new fat laden bureaucratic part of the DE and/or Homeland Security or overseen and directed by each state. The training should be no less than loca leo requirements with specific training for closed environments specific only to their job.
It isn't an overnight thing and it will have bumps and learning curves and it will afterall, have the meddling hands of politicians and influencers. But the sooner something other than gun confiscation happens, the sooner there is a clear path to a solution.


----------



## homesteadforty (Dec 4, 2007)

MoonRiver said:


> That would be for each state to decide. If they are paid an extra $5k per year, you could probably pick the best.


 I just want to preface that I'm not being a smart a**. At first glance arming teachers could be a logical answer, but on closer thought I have serious questions about how it might be implemented.

If you had/have children in school how would you want their teachers to be chosen and trained?


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

GunMonkeyIntl said:


> Our own resident pedoindoctrination specialist, @SLFarmMI , used exactly that same tactic when debating the topic after the Florida shooting a couple years back. She refused to argue why teachers shouldn’t be allowed to be armed, and insisted on arguing why teachers shouldn’t be forced to be armed.
> 
> After pointing out, literally at least a dozen times, the strawman nature of her argument, given that no one was arguing for the mandatory armament of teachers, she finally embraced her strawman and said that those of us who argued for the option for teachers to arm themselves really meant that we wanted to force all teachers to be armed, and that we’d resort to that eventually. Then she stopped commenting on that topic altogether.
> 
> Some months later, a popular firearms blog posted a teachers’ Union newsletter that provided talking points on arming teachers, and most/all of what SL had to say on the topic matched, word for word, the newsletter’s talking points.


I too recall the conversation. She was well versed in the use of the word "forced" when it came to teachers, pregancy, voting rights, etc.
I'll never get a satisfactory answer as to why so many can feel that passionate about a topic, yet so fearful of free thinking outside of scripted phrases and terminology designed to leverage and label.
They do nothing but hinder honest discussion and debate.
I do know the reason they do it, I would just like someone to say so.
With some online halfbots, they are, like Hillary, not conversing with you so much as they are trying to manipulate the lurkers. I, on the other hand, am willing to listen to opposing thought with the possibily of learning something new. Too bad for the most part I learn more about the poster than the subject.
I can lob CNN tomatoes very well at those who deserve it, but if they are willing be have truthful dialouge, I have no fear whatsoever of speaking freely and openly.


----------



## homesteadforty (Dec 4, 2007)

GTX63 said:


> Those who volunteer for approved training.


Even those that teach CRT or non-binary gender studies?



> Ex military/leo/security, licsensed and FFLs would have preference.


Do enough of these folks go into teaching careers?



> The training should be no less than loca leo requirements with specific training for closed environments specific only to their job.


Last I heard the typical LEO firearms training was about 135 hours. That's a pretty good chunk of time not including training specific to school enviroments.



> It isn't an overnight thing and it will have bumps and learning curves and it will afterall, have the *meddling hands of politicians and influencers*. But the sooner something other than gun confiscation happens, the sooner there is a clear path to a solution.


That is another huge concern.


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

homesteadforty said:


> Even those that teach CRT or non-binary gender studies?
> If they are willing and able. Self defense has no bias.
> 
> Do enough of these folks go into teaching careers?
> ...


----------



## muleskinner2 (Oct 7, 2007)

MoonRiver said:


> My high school had over 2000 students and at least 8 doors. In the south, some schools have open-air walkways between classrooms. Doors are open for kids to access the athletic fields. Some kids had work-study programs where they left the school at noon. Others arranged to have study hall last period and were allowed to leave early.
> 
> There is usually a door near the parking lot for kids wh drive. There is at least 1 freight door. I have seen many schools using trailers for the overflow students. There might be baseball practice, track practice, tennis, etc all happening at the same time with kids going in and out of the school.
> 
> My point is most schools are not just a building where everyone can be locked inside. They can be made much more secure than they currently are, but just like the shooting during the Congressional softball practice, someone with a rifle doesn't need to get inside the school.


Yes, but trained men armed with rifles could patrol the grounds. And when those trained men returned rifle fire of an attacker, the incident wouldn't last very long. And if the school isn't defensible, then change the school. Close in the open breezeways between classrooms, put a real fence around the grounds with guards and check points. It won't be easy but it is doable. Back in the 1960's they had a few attacks on schools in Israel, so they began to guard the schools. Go to Israel and attack a school, let me know how that works out.

Go to NASA and try to get close to the launch pad, or Area 51 and try to get close enough to take pictures. It isn't a matter of having the means, it is a matter of having the will.


----------



## muleskinner2 (Oct 7, 2007)

homesteadforty said:


> a yearly clip fired at paper tar


That is exactly what the majority of police departments do every year. You fire fifty rounds, at a stationary paper target. If you get 70 percent of the shots center mass, you are good for another year.


----------



## Kiamichi Kid (Apr 9, 2009)

homesteadforty said:


> Even those that teach CRT or non-binary gender studies?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


My son is a Teacher, he’s also a Veteran, former enlisted infantry and later a commissioned officer in the Military Police.. I’m quite sure he’s more than qualified… his brother is also a Combat Veteran and LEO and was a SWAT Team Weapons Instructor. I taught them both (I’m also a Veteran and Weapons Instructor.) There are more teachers who are qualified than many realize.
There are plenty of us who would gladly volunteer to protect our local schools.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

MoonRiver said:


> I believe it may already be a crime. Maybe only after the fact.
> 
> I don't have a problem with it. If I heard someone say they were planning on committing a crime and shooting people, I would call the police and not feel even the tiniest bit of guilt.


If they make an overt threat, sure, let the authorities know. Where the problem lies is if they support particular politicians, or, certain political groups and the authorities expect you to turn them in.


----------



## homesteadforty (Dec 4, 2007)

Kiamichi Kid said:


> My son is a Teacher, he’s also a Veteran, former enlisted infantry and later a commissioned officer in the Military Police.. I’m quite sure he’s more than qualified…


No question most vets are qualified... my sincere question is, are there enough that want to teach? There are roughly 4 million teachers in 140,000 schools in the U.S. That's a lot of positions to fill.

BTW... my favorite teacher was a retired Marine D.I. He remained a friend and mentor for 30 some years after I graduated until he passed.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

homesteadforty said:


> I just want to preface that I'm not being a smart a**. At first glance arming teachers could be a logical answer, but on closer thought I have serious questions about how it might be implemented.
> 
> If you had/have children in school how would you want their teachers to be chosen and trained?


I would want the teachers who want to learn how to protect our kids to the best of their ability to be the ones who get the training. The others...no way. Train them at the police academy. I have a daughter that's protected by a person who doesn't take crap from anybody and knows how to handle firearms safely and effectively. My wife!! 😎


----------



## homesteadforty (Dec 4, 2007)

muleskinner2 said:


> That is exactly what the majority of police departments do every year. You fire fifty rounds, at a stationary paper target. If you get 70 percent of the shots center mass, you are good for another year.


Yes, but LEO's get and have year round on the job training, knowledge, skills and experience to assist their range instruction.

That 70% is why so many LEO involved shooting situations result in officers 15 round clips empty and the perp walking away with a flesh wound to the arm. In some training 90% in Hogans Alley style scenarios is required.


----------



## Sheepdog GM (8 mo ago)

HDRider said:


> I cannot find the text for the new proposed gun restrictions. Can you?
> 
> Can you show us in the text of the new proposed gun restrictions how they would have stopped the Uvalde shooting?
> 
> Thanks


----------



## Sheepdog GM (8 mo ago)

There is NO law that will stop evil! This "do something" is for political points only and THEY know it. Laws only mean something to LAW ABIDING citizens. CRIMINALS DON'T FOLLOW THE LAW!


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

homesteadforty said:


> I just want to preface that I'm not being a smart a**. At first glance arming teachers could be a logical answer, but on closer thought I have serious questions about how it might be implemented.
> 
> If you had/have children in school how would you want their teachers to be chosen and trained?


Being the odds of them ever having to use the gun is probably less than one in a million, I don't see it as a major issue. I know there is a topnotch gun school in Nevada. I'm sure they could develop and teach a course for teachers if necessary. I'd rather the state develop a program so the state, county, city, and school are all on the same page.

Arming teachers is mainly a deterrent and the last line of defense.


----------



## homesteadforty (Dec 4, 2007)

MoonRiver said:


> Being the odds of them ever having to use the gun is probably less than one in a million, I don't see it as a major issue. I know there is a topnotch gun school in Nevada. I'm sure they could develop and teach a course for teachers if necessary. I'd rather the state develop a program so the state, county, city, and school are all on the same page.
> 
> Arming teachers is mainly a deterrent and the last line of defense.


Very reasonable and pertinent thoughts... thx.


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

muleskinner2 said:


> It isn't a matter of having the means, it is a matter of having the will.


There is no way that level of security can be implemented at every school in the country. For one, it is cost prohibitive. For another, it would still be fairly easy to get into a school play or a football game or any number of other school events with a gun. 

The best we can do is reduce the risk, but we can never completely stop someone with a gun that is intent on shooting people.


----------



## Kiamichi Kid (Apr 9, 2009)

homesteadforty said:


> No question most vets are qualified... my sincere question is, are there enough that want to teach? There are roughly 4 million teachers in 140,000 schools in the U.S. That's a lot of positions to fill.
> 
> BTW... my favorite teacher was a retired Marine D.I. He remained a friend and mentor for 30 some years after I graduated until he passed.


Every school I attended had several veterans on staff, teachers, coaches, administrators, bus drivers, maintenance etc. 
The school my sons graduated from had several combat veterans teaching or employed in other positions.
I’m more than willing to help provide school security as are many other Veterans.
With the number of Veterans in the workforce it shouldn’t be that difficult to find well trained and willing applicants.


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl (May 13, 2013)

homesteadforty said:


> I can monitor and correct errant information... not neccessarily so with an errant bullet. I know many people that I trust with almost all things... except guns. Just as I know many I trust with guns but not neccissarily other things (like say driving).


I get your point, probably better than most given how much of my life I spend on ranges with people who probably should leave the pew-pews to others. _Side advice: if you ever find yourself on a range with someone whose name you recognize as an “expert” from a gun magazine, blog, or TV show, immediately begin looking for the nearest loaded plate carrier and take the time to say a sincere prayer to Whoever you pray to. _

That said, the concept of trusting someone with a gun has essentially become obsolete. I’m currently sitting in a restaurant in CA, and I _know_ of at least four pistols in the room. If I was still in AZ, I’d be making guesses about how many tables _didn’t_ have at least one gun under them. If you are worried about finding trust in an armed staff at your child’s school, you can pretty much write off ever taking them out in public again.

Too, having recently watched a video of a father getting tased while trying to force his way through a police cordon effectively established to allow a deranged murderer a “safe space” to kill as many children as he liked without the risk of being interrupted or inconvenienced during his murder spree, I’m able to make a few confident guesses about the mind set of that detained father. I have zero doubt that, if that father were presented with only one option for a rescue effort, and that rescue party consisted of Michael J Fox holding a half-empty bottle of Tito’s in one hand, and a Hi-Point 9mm Lung-Blower-Outer in the other, he’d have traded everything he owned for Marty McFly to give it a go.

Confidence in any given teacher’s ability with a firearm becomes worth a collective f-all in the moment when someone is trying to murder a bunch of children.



homesteadforty said:


> You simply can't get rid of all the teachers with different political, social or religious views than yours. If we could do that, there wouldn't be two teachers left in each county.


The first part of that is actually easier than it sounds. If you or your child are able to divine the political views of their teacher, even if it’s their political science teacher, then that teacher is doing it wrong and should be forced to find another profession. If you figure out their religion based on anything other than their dress and/or personal effects, the same remedy applies.

A teacher should be able to be counted on to at least try to protect the children in their charge. Likewise, a teacher should be able to be counted on to leave their views on the patriarchy, corporate despotism, pansexualism, and the merits of anal intercourse out of their syllabus.


----------



## Paumon (Jul 12, 2007)

poppy said:


> I will agree with one thing Biden said. Mental health should be improved to stop the destruction. .....


That about sums it all up in a nutshell.

If everyone wants to see an end to the killing then it's essential to figure out, learn to recognize and put an end to whatever is causing the mental derangement.

.


----------



## Shrek (May 1, 2002)

Posted 6/3/22 9:41 P.M. CDST

A Sheriff's deputy here told me that as a way to add additional properly trained teachers as back up SROs that is being discussed among LEOs is the possibility of teachers who are interested becoming Reserve Sheriff Deputies or Reserve Municipal Police Officers, going through the state law enforcement training academy..

The main question in the various discussions he said was if a trained teacher who is also trained as a Reserve Officer would be able to balance their teaching and protective swivel aspects well enough in the classroom.

He agreed when I said if that is a concern, than that explains why Sheriffs and Police Chiefs currently are trying to recruit recently retired LEOs to SRO second careers with goals of foot patrol SRO substations in all schools of 4 to 15 officers at each school depending on the size as first response if needed.


----------



## kinderfeld (Jan 29, 2006)

Sen. Graham: Allow Former Military Members to Protect Our Schools


Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., says it's time to mobilize retired and former service members to secure schools in the wake of the Texas elementary school shooting where a gunman killed 21, including 19 children.




www.newsmax.com


----------



## barnbilder (Jul 1, 2005)

Letting crazy people have access to guns is not nearly as dangerous as letting the FBI have access to crazy people.


----------



## link30240 (Aug 22, 2021)

barnbilder said:


> Letting crazy people have access to guns is not nearly as dangerous as letting the FBI have access to crazy people.


True!


----------



## Max Overhead (Feb 22, 2021)

We can stop school shootings by getting the government the hell out of education. We could also vastly improve health (mental and otherwise) by getting the government the hell out of medicine. The free market would have answered this conundrum the day after Columbine. But government plays politics and school shootings are gravy.


----------



## nodak3 (Feb 5, 2003)

Conversation from yesterday: person said they were Baptist, and when they moved here they found the nearest big Baptist church to attend. (We attended the same one for a while.) Then the pastor got to talking about gun laws and when the bad guys show up and shoot out churches. He guessed that there would be at least 150 or so of the 300 in attendance who were carrying, mostly concealed, not trained or licensed. So they planned to have a big old meeting and get some rules in place "in case."

Our thoughts were the same as the stranger yesterday: no way do I ever want to be in a room with at least 150 armed and angry Baptists.

Home church is safer and more peaceful


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

The more I think about it, the more I think this is an unsolvable problem. 

Public K-12 Schools in the US - about 130,000
Total Students - Over 50 Million
Avg # Students per school - Over 500
source

Just for an example, take a school of 1000 students. Drive by the school at different times of the day and see what the activity looks like. How busy is it in the morning? At the end of school? Are there kids using the athletic fields? How late do people stay at the school? How often are there school events at night or on the weekend? 

You get the idea. Define the problem.

Now start putting together your security plan. It's going to be expensive, and for an event that is highly unlikely to ever happen. So now you have your plan. How many new people have to be hired and at what salary? How many hours a day does the school need coverage? What is the cost to harden the school? What policies have to be put in place? How will they be enforced? How much training is needed and how often?

Now multiply this times 130,000 schools. How often are there security lapses at military bases? 

We cannot make schools secure. We can do a few things that make them a little safer than they are now, but there is no way government schools will ever implement and follow a strict security program.

So we should concentrate on the obvious things like access, a security guard, and locked doors. Make sure there is backup on-site and that the local police are properly trained. Beyond that is wasted effort and money that would be better spent on identifying potential shooters and intervening before the shootings happen.


----------



## link30240 (Aug 22, 2021)

2 things that certainly wont mitigate the problem. Police that sit outside for 45 minutes while shootings are going on! And disarming law abiding citizens!

1) Every school should have the ability to lock down!
2) And should have atleast 2 armed security personnel on duty at all times during operating hours.
3) And 911 should alert any school that any police action is taking place with in 2 miles of the school so they can institute a lock down procedure.

Those 3 things would have likely stopped Uvalde before it even started.

They didnt lock down the campus, They didnt lock down the rooms, They didnt have armed security to secure and monitor/stop all interior traffic and they were not alerted when the police were already chasing this guy from the original scene where he shot is Gma.


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

link30240 said:


> 2 things that certainly wont mitigate the problem. Police that sit outside for 45 minutes while shootings are going on! And disarming law abiding citizens!
> 
> 1) Every school should have the ability to lock down!
> 2) And should have atleast 2 armed security personnel on duty at all times during operating hours.
> ...


Alerting schools was one of the problems. The border patrol was involved in so many high-speed chases in the area, that the school was regularly in lockdown. It loses its effect after 10 or 20 times.


----------



## link30240 (Aug 22, 2021)

MoonRiver said:


> Alerting schools was one of the problems. The border patrol was involved in so many high-speed chases in the area, that the school was regularly in lockdown. It loses its effect after 10 or 20 times.


The higher the crime area the more safety layers need to be added, more personnel, more fences/walls. tighter and stricter policies. But in Uvalde atleast strictly enacting those 3 policies would have likely prevented that from happening at all. 


But again relying on the police whose job is not to prevent will never work. And disarming innocent citizens will not work either those are foolish responses to a significant issue. You likely cant completely stop all mass killings or school shooting but common sense security procedures can mitigate a number of them. Definitely more then disarming and relying on police can/will do.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

Cornhusker said:


> To stop school shootings, we first have to find out "why".
> Why are these people killing kids?
> If we know why, then we can know "who".
> You can take away everybody's guns, but until you solve the "Why" and the "Who", you won't stop the killing.
> ...


I


KC Rock said:


> The problem is some people can't handle imperfection. No law will be 100% effective. If assault weapons are banned,
> 
> and they should be. And if ownership is illegal and the AK needs to be turned in, and they should be..there will still be
> 
> gun killings. But they will be fewer. And their won't be as many massacres of school kids... period


I think we need to look much deeper than the weapon. 

There are many countries with high firearm ownership that are not experiencing mass shootings, which leaves me to wonder why?

My other concern is that if the root problem is not resolved, gun control is nothing more than a temporary bandage.

I would not point fingers at an individual country because we are having our own mental crisis but I still believe that we need to work on stigmas associated with mental health and get young people the help we need sooner.


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

In 2021, 15 people out of 50 million students were killed in school shootings.
In 2021, 53 people out of 50 million students were injured in school shootings.
In 2021, there were shootings at 34 schools out of 130,000 schools.

A large number of "school shootings" take place in the parking lot, often after a football or basketball game. Canceling HS football and basketball games would probably prevent more school shootings than any other action that might be taken.

School Shootings in 2021: How Many and Where (2021, March 1). Education Week. Retrieved Month Day, Year from School Shootings in 2021: How Many and Where


----------



## Redlands Okie (Nov 28, 2017)

HDRider said:


> We become a nation of snitches like the old East Germany


Already in place and headed that way with abortion issues. Would not be surprised to see the same for firearms.


----------



## Redlands Okie (Nov 28, 2017)

KC Rock said:


> The problem is some people can't handle imperfection. No law will be 100% effective. If assault weapons are banned,
> 
> and they should be. And if ownership is illegal and the AK needs to be turned in, and they should be..there will still be
> 
> gun killings. But they will be fewer. And their won't be as many massacres of school kids... period


Perhaps more people need to know what a assault rifle is so they would realize how silly the idea is.


----------



## Alice In TX/MO (May 10, 2002)

This is how you stop a shooter:









Texas woman fatally shoots suspected stalker who kicked in front door: Police


A Harris County, Texas woman fatally shot a suspected stalker after he allegedly found her new home address and kicked in her front door, according to investigators.




www.foxnews.com


----------



## Alice In TX/MO (May 10, 2002)

70-year-old Florida woman shoots, kills suspected home intruder: 'I’m a fighter'


Florida woman Virginia Morrison says she shot and killed a home intruder who would not leave even after firing a warning shot and hitting him with a broom.




www.foxnews.com


----------



## Alice In TX/MO (May 10, 2002)

Indiana woman shoots and kills suspected burglar in home


A woman in Indiana fatally shot a suspected burglar who kicked in her door in the middle of the night.




www.foxnews.com


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

Redlands Okie said:


> Perhaps more people need to know what a assault rifle is so they would realize how silly the idea is.


And what a "weapon of war" is. 
I have asked the question for several years and am still waiting for a military veteran who would volunteer to drop into Mogadishu or Kabul with a semi automatic Bushmaster.


----------



## barnbilder (Jul 1, 2005)

wr said:


> I
> 
> 
> I think we need to look much deeper than the weapon.
> ...


Do those countries, with high firearms ownership, and low incidences of mass shootings have the following common factor? A highly politicized federal law enforcement agency that is willing to use their position to shape the political atmosphere. Said agency guaranteed hours of unsupervised alone time with anyone who displays any level of potentially violent mental instability. Said agency with personnel fully trained to use fairly advanced psychological techniques to persuade and manipulate people into doing any number of things. Said agency with a long and detailed history of some pretty sinister action.

We don't have a gun problem, a mass shooting problem, or a mental health problem in this country. We have an FBI problem.


----------



## muleskinner2 (Oct 7, 2007)

Alice In TX/MO said:


> This is how you stop a shooter:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Yep.


----------



## barnbilder (Jul 1, 2005)

Why the FBI Saw Martin Luther King Jr. as a Communist Threat


Bureau director J. Edgar Hoover had made his career fighting the perceived threat of communism.




www.history.com





Has the agency really changed that much? We know what they did more recently, stepping out of the bounds of law enforcement to shape the political landscape. 

If you do something, anything, to rise above the common petty criminal, you will spend time with an FBI agent. If you display any degree of mental instability, you will spend time with an FBI agent. If you do a stupid adolescent prank, or make some type of misguided cry for help during a period of mental instability, you will spend time with an FBI agent. If you were the type of person to be capable of seriously violent behavior, mental instability, and be highly malleable in terms of following suggestions, they are certainly trained to identify those tendencies during a short visit. Not only trained to identify, but trained to manipulate in the most effective fashion. And they have the ability to sign off on your evaluation and put you back into society, and every other law enforcement agency will honor their assessment. 

Not suggesting that they are all bad, but lets suppose their was an agent, or a group of agents, that were willing to shape political atmospheres for personally ideological reasons, (as they have proven time and again that this in fact happens) they are in a very good position to do so very effectively. They only have to find the right person, with the right criteria, and handle them just the right way, and they get the headlines they need to garner more power. 

It's blatantly obvious, the fact that when the second amendment is protected by a veto, these things don't happen nearly as frequently, that would be the tell.


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl (May 13, 2013)

GTX63 said:


> And what a "weapon of war" is.
> I have asked the question for several years and am still waiting for a military veteran who would volunteer to drop into Mogadishu or Kabul with a semi automatic Bushmaster.


I suspect that’s because most who’ve been to Mogadishu or Kabul don’t really want to go back. That said, I know plenty of real door kickers who said they (very) rarely flipped their selector to point back at them. You’ll find that’s especially true with Marines. When using your battle rifle as a rifle, semi-auto is more effective at putting rounds on target. Full-auto is generally reserved for suppressive fire and breaking contact, and there are better weapons systems at the squad level for those specific tasks.

An AR15 absolutely can be a weapon of war. That’s precisely why the 2nd amendment guarantees our right to keep and bear it. It has been called the Modern Musket for a reason.


----------



## Kiamichi Kid (Apr 9, 2009)

MoonRiver said:


> In 2021, 15 people out of 50 million students were killed in school shootings.
> In 2021, 53 people out of 50 million students were injured in school shootings.
> In 2021, there were shootings at 34 schools out of 130,000 schools.
> 
> ...


This is what that works out to in percentages .


----------



## barnbilder (Jul 1, 2005)

We have all asked the rhetorical question, those of us that remember sitting in the high school student parking lot, playing show and tell with our deer rifles with teachers and principals participating. What has changed? I'll tell you what. And it's not video games, that's stupid, we shot each other with sticks and toy guns, sometimes BB guns and played out all sorts of soldier fantasies rife with pretend casualties and a complete disregard for human life. No, what has changed is, back then, the FBI was concerned with fighting communism by holding down the black man. Times have changed. The powers that be now want to usher in communism by holding down the second amendment, from some time about the Randy Weaver/Waco era until present. 

Now before Gun Monkey gets on here and says he's met FBI agents and they were great guys, I'm sure some are. I'm sure that if he attended the shot show in the late thirties he would have met some really swell German fellows too. An agency is only as good as the nefarious powers that run it. Build a time machine, go back and describe today's FBI to George, Patrick, Thomas and Ben and see what they have to say about it.


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl (May 13, 2013)

barnbilder said:


> We have all asked the rhetorical question, those of us that remember sitting in the high school student parking lot, playing show and tell with our deer rifles with teachers and principals participating. What has changed? I'll tell you what. And it's not video games, that's stupid, we shot each other with sticks and toy guns, sometimes BB guns and played out all sorts of soldier fantasies rife with pretend casualties and a complete disregard for human life. No, what has changed is, back then, the FBI was concerned with fighting communism by holding down the black man. Times have changed. The powers that be now want to usher in communism by holding down the second amendment, from some time about the Randy Weaver/Waco era until present.
> 
> Now before Gun Monkey gets on here and says he's met FBI agents and they were great guys, I'm sure some are. I'm sure that if he attended the shot show in the late thirties he would have met some really swell German fellows too. An agency is only as good as the nefarious powers that run it. Build a time machine, go back and describe today's FBI to George, Patrick, Thomas and Ben and see what they have to say about it.


I love word salad.

So tasty.


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl (May 13, 2013)

barnbilder said:


> We have all asked the rhetorical question, those of us that remember sitting in the high school student parking lot, playing show and tell with our deer rifles with teachers and principals participating. What has changed? I'll tell you what. And it's not video games, that's stupid, we shot each other with sticks and toy guns, sometimes BB guns and played out all sorts of soldier fantasies rife with pretend casualties and a complete disregard for human life. No, what has changed is, back then, the FBI was concerned with fighting communism by holding down the black man. Times have changed. The powers that be now want to usher in communism by holding down the second amendment, from some time about the Randy Weaver/Waco era until present.
> 
> Now before Gun Monkey gets on here and says he's met FBI agents and they were great guys, I'm sure some are. I'm sure that if he attended the shot show in the late thirties he would have met some really swell German fellows too. An agency is only as good as the nefarious powers that run it. Build a time machine, go back and describe today's FBI to George, Patrick, Thomas and Ben and see what they have to say about it.


But, seriously, we do appear to be trying to usher in Communism (big C) at a national level. That’s really not a function of the FBI, but, rather, those who hold its leash.

I don’t think that’s it, though, or at least not at the fundamental level. We’ve become a nation of narcissists. Statistically, our suicide rate hasn’t changed all that much in the last 100 years; suicide is a cultural manifestation, and our foundational culture hasn’t really changed in that regard. What has changed, though, is that those so truly desperate as to kill themselves now have an outlet to make their final act a dramatic demonstration of their despair.

Where the suicidal were once content (?) to shamble out to the wood shed and off themselves, they now have a medium by which to make sure the entire world learns their name, if only they can kill enough innocents on their way off the mortal coil.

I realize that it’s an impossible goal, but, had the murders at Columbine not been so wifey broadcast, or, at least, the perpetrators been relegated to being labeled F-Tard#1 and F-Tard#2, more mass murders, at schools and otherwise, would have been prevented than could be accomplished by any sort of gun control or school security procedure.


----------



## gilberte (Sep 25, 2004)

It's the lack of old time, traditional family values. Some kids now don't even know who their father is. Or where they are staying tonight: Momma's? Daddy's? Grammy's? The genie is out of the bottle, and I fear it will be some time before it is returned.


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

GunMonkeyIntl said:


> I suspect that’s because most who’ve been to Mogadishu or Kabul don’t really want to go back. That said, I know plenty of real door kickers who said they (very) rarely flipped their selector to point back at them. You’ll find that’s especially true with Marines. When using your battle rifle as a rifle, semi-auto is more effective at putting rounds on target. Full-auto is generally reserved for suppressive fire and breaking contact, and there are better weapons systems at the squad level for those specific tasks.
> 
> An AR15 absolutely can be a weapon of war. That’s precisely why the 2nd amendment guarantees our right to keep and bear it. It has been called the Modern Musket for a reason.


I believe a 30 round mag can be emptied out in 2.7 seconds and maybe the first round or two hits the door above the bad guys and keeps going. That wouldn't be my idea of conserving ammo in a bad situation. 
The 3 pops at a time switch is a nice option in heavy traffic. My point is that when facing a bunch of lunatic swarms bent on wearing your boots and night vision gear back to their hut, it is nice to have weapons suited for the task.
I agree that a mini 14 or even a 10/22 Ruger could be considered a weapon of war, however they are not issued to our military nor are they equal to what we equip our troops with. The media and the influencers, (and the ignorant) use the terms "assault" and "weapons of war" to leverage sentiment and recognition.
I consider a fully armored Humvee to be a military grade tool intended for war/conflict.
Because the Taliban uses a Toyota with 14" rims and a short bed doesn't make the Tacoma a weapon of war, it means they run what they brung.


----------



## po boy (Jul 12, 2010)

GunMonkeyIntl said:


> I suspect that’s because most who’ve been to Mogadishu or Kabul don’t really want to go back. That said, I know plenty of real door kickers who said they (very) rarely flipped their selector to point back at them. You’ll find that’s especially true with Marines. When using your battle rifle as a rifle, semi-auto is more effective at putting rounds on target. Full-auto is generally reserved for suppressive fire and breaking contact, and there are better weapons systems at the squad level for those specific tasks.
> 
> An AR15 absolutely can be a weapon of war. That’s precisely why the 2nd amendment guarantees our right to keep and bear it. It has been called the Modern Musket for a reason.


There were guns other than muskets back then.


----------



## po boy (Jul 12, 2010)

I get the news out of Atlanta and the number of shootings is alarming. Several students have been caught with pistols in their backpacks in the schools.


----------



## nodak3 (Feb 5, 2003)

We have school shootings because we allow them to happen. I was in high school in the 60's in an area where most kids travelled quite a ways, up to 64 miles one way, to get to school. Of course the commuter students who did not ride the bus carried rifles, usually loaded and on a gun rack in the back window of a pick up. No school shootings until.....

I cannot tell the story and remain politically correct. But here it is: we had two ethnicities, one anglo and one not. Anglo were minority. Lived on different sides of a drainage arroyo in town at least, mingled in the country. Separate churches, cultures, and to some extent stores. Peaceful between the two, unpeaceful among the majority ethnicity. Then urban renewal happened. Feds tore down the majority group's housing in town, rebuilt into apartments, and moved folks of a third ethnicity down from Chicago, thousands of miles away. Some of those folks were salt of the earth, very nice people. Except they referred to the local law enforcement as the "po po" and basically spent life getting around the laws if they chose to do so.

Until the school shooting in I believe 1966 or 67. We had several buildings in our high school, up to a couple blocks apart. 3 minutes between the bells, so we had a lot of people really rushing around outside. One of the Chicago kids was mad at another over a girl, and tried to shoot him. Several shots fired in a crowd of kids. Thank God no one was hit.

However, the "po po" arrived in about 3 minutes or so, found out from witnesses who fired the shots, nabbed his sorry butt and had him in jail before the school day ended. He wound up in prison. The city fathers met, called the federal housing folks in to meet with them, and the shooter's family was out of town before the week was over. City fathers also kept pressing the feds until the feds moved that ethnicity out of our town, back where they came from, and our majority group (non anglo) that were supposed to get the apartments since they were the ones who were booted out of their homes anyway by the feds moved into the apartments.

Peace reigned.


----------



## Forcast (Apr 15, 2014)

Lets arm 8 to 13 year olds . teach active shooter skills and gun ownership. If a 4th grader had the thought to cover herself in blood and play dead...surely kids are able to learn to protect themselves.


----------



## KC Rock (Oct 28, 2021)

Redlands Okie said:


> Perhaps more people need to know what a assault rifle is so they would realize how silly the idea is.


I used to be able to buy a little beer, drive around with my girl. Can't now because of the power drinkers.

Same sacrifice will have to be made by the gun owners, law abiding, careful with their aks, keep them locked

up. But because of the nut jobs, which cannot be ferretted out in any accurate way, everyone will have to

give up something...for now the assault weapons. Later? Who knows....


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

KC Rock said:


> Same sacrifice will have to be made by the gun owners, law abiding, careful with their aks, keep them locked
> 
> up. But because of the nut jobs, which cannot be ferretted out in any accurate way, everyone will have to
> 
> give up something...for now the assault weapons. Later? Who knows....


I'm pretty sure you will hear and see a collective "No" from a number of gun owners larger than most nations.
You better go back to the drawing board.


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

po boy said:


> I get the news out of Atlanta and the number of shootings is alarming. Several students have been caught with pistols in their backpacks in the schools.


An extremely low number of actual school shootings when you limit it to inside the school building. When I was in school, we had fist fights. These days they bring a gun to the fight, as Obama would say.


----------



## po boy (Jul 12, 2010)

MoonRiver said:


> An extremely low number of actual school shootings when you limit it to inside the school building. When I was in school, we had fist fights. These days they bring a gun to the fight, as Obama would say.


Right, it is a low number, but hardening the schools and we need to do something to track these troubled kids to keep them from buying a firearm woul help


----------



## I_don't_know (Sep 28, 2012)

HDRider said:


> We become a nation of snitches like the old East Germany





GTX63 said:


> I'm pretty sure you will hear and see a collective "No" from a number of gun owners larger than most nations.
> You better go back to the drawing board.





po boy said:


> Right, it is a low number, but hardening the schools and we need to do something to track these troubled kids to keep them from buying a firearm woul help


----------



## I_don't_know (Sep 28, 2012)

When I was a kid, we were not allowed to watch "The Three Stooges" because they were too violent. I am now 74! Take a look at the CRAP on TV today. The only shows that are not violent are cooking shows, game shows, and sitcoms like "Father Knows Best". Take a look at the commercials; you would think half the men in the country are about to have their equipment ready to fall off! 
The standards were removed by the courts so one entity could put a commercial on the TV! Which should be more em-portent; a company's bottom line or the morals of this country? If the gov has no right to set standards; then why is Roe vs Wade being changed. What law was changed or are we all subject to the whims of some people with a LAW degree!!! 
The guns are not the problem; the total lack of discipline is. Dr. Spock came out with his book in 1946 and the gov jumped on it. He made an apology in Time Magazine. He agreed Kids need discipline. I had two kids when the notice from school came home, (If your parents spank you call this number) When mine brought it home I got two trash bags. I went into their bedrooms and tossed their clothes in the bags. I then threw the bags out in the yard. They were both crying "What are you doing? I told them if you want to live by their rules you can go live in their house! I'll go call them for you!" They wanted to stay at our house so I wrote up a contract between them and me. It gave me permission to spank them when I thought they needed it! 
We are now in the third generation of kids raised with little or no discipline, with ho standers on TV or the Net! 
If you do not like the mass shootings perhaps "We The People" should set some standards by electing people that have the gall to stand up for ethics, and standards. We have the separation of church and state, now we need the separation of commerce and state!


----------



## nodak3 (Feb 5, 2003)

Yep, setting standards is where it has to start. When a mom, dad, teacher, or staff at a retail outlet tells a teenager to cover up her nugies before she can enter the store, the world will come down around their heads for "s***" shaming her. Same if parents of a young teen tell her no, she cannot hang out all the time with the same age teen with 3 babies.

If parents complain to the schools that their kids are REQUIRED in English class to read books that are filled with violence, cursing, and sexual perversion, it is those parents that will be reviled as bigoted. If they insist math class be about math, not about social justice and how the kids "feel" when a classmate makes a better grade or has spendier clothing, they will be shamed as bigots.

If you expect your preacher to speak of sin and salvation, think again. You will likely be chastised and told that thinking is why the dopers, the skirt chasers, the abusers, and the perverts don't like to come to church. You will be told you are being judgmental.

If you go to work and refuse to call the hairy faced guy with male appendages she or whatever made up pronoun they like, your job is likely at risk.

Most people today have no idea what a decent society even looks like. Many have participated in one or another way in planning and executing a very small human being, and are very proud of that fact.

If you try to change this with force and violence, you become what you hate. And if you try to change it at the ballot box, which you should, you have to understand that the change you seek is gonna take a long time. And be prepared for court challenges and losses.

But decent people can use the same weapons as the other side does. Don't be afraid to hurt a feeling. Don't be afraid to do a little shaming back when you get shamed for standing up for decency. And use a very powerful weapon: peer pressure. Don't hang out with, buy from, work for, or sell to those that are destroying the fabric of the country. You will suffer. But you just might win.


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

po boy said:


> Right, it is a low number, but hardening the schools and we need to do something to track these troubled kids to keep them from buying a firearm woul help


It's like looking for the needle in the haystack. You won't find it until it sticks you.


----------



## Summerfell (9 mo ago)

The biggest problem with "do something to track these troubled kids" is HIPAA, the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability act. HIPAA directly addresses maintaining the confidentiality of protected health information. If a teen is seeing a psychiatrist, those medical records cannot be released to anyone without the consent of the teen (if 18 or older) or the parent or legal guardian. HIPAA will prevent this teen from being "flagged" on a background check. It would prevent ANYONE being treated by a medical/mental health professional from being "flagged" on a background check. And even if HIPAA were changed to allow flagging of individuals who could potentially conduct a mass shooting/killing, what criteria would trigger the flagging? What diagnosis would immediately reject that person's purchase of a firearm? Anxiety? Depression? Schizophrenia? Bipolar Disorder? Psychopathy? Anti-Social Personality? Narcissism? Any one of these, under the right conditions, could cause a break from "normal" behavior at one time or another. Millions of people suffer from one or more mental health disorders, but they've never seen a medical professional or mental health care professional for their disorder. And even though someone has a diagnosed disorder, that doesn't mean he/she is potential mass-murderer. If a past history of seeing a psychiatrist, psychologist, or counselor became another reason to keep someone from legally purchasing a firearm, how many of us would have our purchase rejected? How many of the school shooters have actually been diagnosed with a mental disorder? If even ONE of them was never seen by a medical/mental health professional, then "flagging" for a mental health disorder still wouldn't have stopped that person from buying a firearm and committing those murders.

I agree that mental health has to be addressed in this nation. Mental health care has to be available, regardless of ability to pay, to anyone and everyone who needs it. Minor or major, temporary or chronic, mental health disorders need to be addressed, treated, and followed up on a regular basis for however long it's necessary. Will it make a difference in the number of mass shootings in this country? One hopes so. But not all shooters have mental health disorders - some are just plain evil. And unfortunately, evil can't be treated...it often isn't even be recognized until something horrendous occurs. And then it's too late.


----------



## KC Rock (Oct 28, 2021)

GTX63 said:


> I'm pretty sure you will hear and see a collective "No" from a number of gun owners larger than most nations.
> You better go back to the drawing board.


I imagine if the law shows up with the appropriate paper work, ak owners will bring forth, quickly, their weapons. And

If people started to be belligerent and threatening, perhaps armored vehicles and such will be brought forth to 

convince people to comply. See a lot of muscle talk here..it will fade away.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

KC Rock said:


> I imagine if the law shows up with the appropriate paper work, ak owners will bring forth, quickly, their weapons. And
> 
> If people started to be belligerent and threatening, perhaps armored vehicles and such will be brought forth to
> 
> convince people to comply. See a lot of muscle talk here..it will fade away.


Should it come down to that and do you feel gun control will solve the problem?

We truly need to figure out why these people snap and what makes them feel they need to take their rage out on innocents.

It seems to me that if these events are premeditated and it won’t take them long to either find illegal firearms or another method.

Canada got a whole new layer of gun control after the Nova Scotia shooting, yet the shooter used illegally owned firearms. We are no more or less safe than we were the week before.

A widowed mother of 5 was shot in Calgary a couple of weeks ago. It was classified as road rage gone bad but it looks a lot more like a gang turf issue.


----------



## KC Rock (Oct 28, 2021)

I would compare removing guns to prevent shootings to everyone getting vaccines for removing covid from our country.

It's been a painstaking process, but has been shown to reduce infections significantly. Although it has been extremely

hard to get everyone on board. There is no doubt in my mind...few guns, fewer shooting.


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

KC Rock said:


> I imagine if the law shows up with the appropriate paper work, ak owners will bring forth, quickly, their weapons. And
> 
> If people started to be belligerent and threatening, perhaps armored vehicles and such will be brought forth to
> 
> convince people to comply. See a lot of muscle talk here..it will fade away.


I am going to bet you an ornery Rooster of mine that will never happen.
The US government already does about what it pleases, and that is with an armed citizenry.
The American people know surrendering firearms would be the end of any representation, and thus, it just won't happen.
If you have the viewpoint that the US government needs to inflict its will on the people, rather than the will of the people on the government, you should ask for a full refund on any education you paid for.


----------



## KC Rock (Oct 28, 2021)

The govt inflicted its will on the people through the draft during ww2. To save our country.


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

And there will never be an involuntary draft again.


----------



## homesteadforty (Dec 4, 2007)

KC Rock said:


> There is no doubt in my mind...few guns, fewer shooting.


Well then, there it is... if there is no doubt in your mind it must be  true.


----------



## RON L (Jan 26, 2011)

When it comes down to plain truth, the left and folks aligned with this administration will not waste an opportunity to get the agenda they desire! It has 0 to do with saving live or safety of children but rather to register guns so that confiscation or elimination will be far easier! Wonder how many body guards, police or others that provide protection for prez Vic prez congress or senate will be disarmed? None is my guess! It’s always about control, far less about guns! History does repeat itself and most countries that went down this path are simply disarmed or so limited it’s not an item except the very rich or connected have weapons! That is what they want.


----------



## po boy (Jul 12, 2010)

KC Rock said:


> I would compare removing guns to prevent shootings to everyone getting vaccines for removing covid from our country.
> 
> It's been a painstaking process, but has been shown to reduce infections significantly. Although it has been extremely
> 
> hard to get everyone on board. There is no doubt in my mind...few guns, fewer shooting.


Taking guns from law-abiding citizens will result in more deaths. Most firearm deaths are caused by people that will never turn in their guns and they will never be taken from them because of the powers that be have no interest in disarming their voters. You can see that in high gun homicide cities that solve far less than half of their homicides.
No one talks about guns used in self-defense and according to the CDC there could be as many as 2.5 million cases per year of guns used for self-defense. This is data from the CDC a few months ago, but the current admin has changed the stats with a word salad apparently from the VP.
Data
More data with higher numbers.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

RON L said:


> A) It has 0 to do with saving live or safety of children
> B) register guns so that confiscation or elimination will be far easier!


It is all about next steps

C) Totalitarianism , or Marxism, or Socialism (Whatever ism name you want to use)


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)




----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

72 million Americans report owning a gun.
40% say they live in a household with someone that owns a gun.
Think about those numbers for a minute and then ask yourself if you would be willing to report to any media or government agency and declare that you own guns. Knowing the answer is likely not just "no" but "hell no", then consider again how many more millions of Americans actually own at least one gun.
Now, how many do you think would willingly turn them over? 20%?
How many would resist to the point of imprisonment or death?
How many would decide they won't wait for Homeland Security to do a door knock?

Drink some common sense and stop wasting time believing America will ever be forcibly disarmed.


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

KC Rock said:


> I would compare removing guns to prevent shootings to everyone getting vaccines for removing covid from our country.
> 
> It's been a painstaking process, but has been shown to reduce infections significantly. Although it has been extremely
> 
> hard to get everyone on board. There is no doubt in my mind...few guns, fewer shooting.


There is no logic leading to that conclusion. School shootings are so rare as to be insignificant except in emotional value. It is a waste of money to focus our attention there. Why is it everyone wants to focus on extremely rare school shootings and ignore gun violence in our cities? Or focus on schools instead of suicides? Or focus on schools instead of drug deaths?

*169 People Killed in School-Related Mass Shootings Since 1999 (May 28, 2022) * 

More California teenagers committed suicide in 2020 (134) than were killed in school mass shootings in any year.

If 100,000 people die from a drug overdose, what are you going to ban?
If 4,000 people a year died from drowning, what are you going to ban?
If 40,000 people die in vehicle traffic, what are you going to ban?

These 3 examples are real-life and all larger by several factors than kids killed in school shootings.

The chart below shows most school shootings are the result of the escalation of a dispute, yet I have not heard any discussion about addressing that problem. Or suicides at over 7%. Politicians are doing what they always do, misdirect and obfuscate.
















51 Years of Data: K-12 School Shooting Statistics Everyone Should Know


In 2018, there were 82 school shooting incidents, the highest there have ever been since 1970. Now, read the rest of the K-12 school shooting statistics.




www.campussafetymagazine.com


----------



## link30240 (Aug 22, 2021)

You guys are feeding a liberal troll. its a waste of time to respond to his foolishness.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

KC Rock said:


> I would compare removing guns to prevent shootings to everyone getting vaccines for removing covid from our country.
> 
> It's been a painstaking process, but has been shown to reduce infections significantly. Although it has been extremely
> 
> hard to get everyone on board. There is no doubt in my mind...few guns, fewer shooting.


I wouldn’t disagree if it actually removed guns but it only seems to remove guns from lawful owners.

It didn’t keep them out of the hands of the Nova Scotia shooter and it’s not keeping them out of the hands of gangs.

I would be interested in your thoughts on how to disarm gangs or convince them to register their firearms. They tend to be a great resource for those looking to skirt the rules.

I look upon half baked gun control exactly like the covid experience. Identify a problem, let the world know that a helpful solution may available, convince people to mind their neighbour’s business, report them if at all possible, turn honest citizens into bad guys, all while claiming the world is so much safer.

Honest and safe gun owners are not the problem, when criminals will continue to sell them for the right price.


----------



## Danaus29 (Sep 12, 2005)

KC Rock said:


> I would compare removing guns to prevent shootings to everyone getting vaccines for removing covid from our country.
> 
> It's been a painstaking process, but has been shown to reduce infections significantly. Although it has been extremely
> 
> hard to get everyone on board. There is no doubt in my mind...few guns, fewer shooting.


Just like the vax doesn't prevent covid infections, taking guns from law abiding people will not prevent bad people from using illegally obtained guns.


----------



## KC Rock (Oct 28, 2021)

wr said:


> I wouldn’t disagree if it actually removed guns but it only seems to remove guns from lawful owners.
> 
> It didn’t keep them out of the hands of the Nova Scotia shooter and it’s not keeping them out of the hands of gangs.
> 
> ...


I would start with the stores that sell the assault guns. Get the receipts and go from there. Lots of articles on

how other countries have started and enforced gun control.


----------



## Hiro (Feb 14, 2016)

KC Rock said:


> I would start with the stores that sell the assault guns. Get the receipts and go from there. Lots of articles on
> 
> how other countries have started and enforced gun control.


Two comments:

1) What is an assault gun.
2) Please start and let me know how it works out.


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl (May 13, 2013)

KC Rock said:


> I used to be able to buy a little beer, drive around with my girl. Can't now because of the power drinkers.
> 
> Same sacrifice will have to be made by the gun owners, law abiding, careful with their aks, keep them locked
> 
> ...


I’m glad you made that analogy. It actually paints your point with the exact shade of silly that it is.

We, as a society, decided that an unacceptably high number of innocent people were dying as a result of people getting drunk, driving their cars, and causing accidents. Our response was to make it illegal to drive your car while drunk. Our response was to criminalize the activity that we actually wanted to stop. The undesirable activity still happens, but with markedly less frequency that it used to, and we have mechanisms in place to prosecute people who break that rule.

Now we apply that analogy to guns; the behavior we want to end is irresponsible or irrational people using their otherwise lawfully-owned guns to harm other people. The thing is, though, we already have laws against all of the things that we don’t want people to do with their guns. It’s already illegal to murder someone, with a gun or otherwise. It still happens, and we have a vehicle by which to prosecute those who do.

The sum of that is that we already have exactly the response in place that we’ve applied to drunk driving. In both cases it still happens, and sometimes we have to settle for prosecution rather than prevention, but the “drunk driving laws” of the gun world already existed long before the actual drunk driving laws.

Now, let’s apply the analogy in reverse. Drunk driving and violence committed by gun are already in a legislatively equitable situation. Legislation has eliminated neither, and, in response to the guns, your side now wants to go further and remove the guns altogether. Given that drunk driving still happens, does that mean that you’re willing to give up being able to own a car or drink alcohol?

Or are you a hypocrite?


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

KC Rock said:


> I would start with the stores that sell the assault guns. Get the receipts and go from there. Lots of articles on
> 
> how other countries have started and enforced gun control.


So, you’re concerned about legally purchased firearms but have no suggestions on how to stop illegally owned firearms.

Do you really believe that gangs in Canada walk into Cabella’s with their PAL and and register them?


----------



## KC Rock (Oct 28, 2021)

wr said:


> So, you’re concerned about legally purchased firearms but have no suggestions on how to stop illegally owned firearms.
> 
> Do you really believe that gangs in Canada walk into Cabella’s with their PAL and and register them?


Your missing the point. In general there will be no organized house to house search for guns. People with assault

weapons will be given a grace period to turn in their guns. As far as gangs, etc. that you are so worried about. Business

as usual. Confiscation during shakedowns or criminal actions. But no more sales of automatics, whether shotguns or

military style weapons. Try saying this over and over. Fewer guns, fewer shootings. It will be a long and arduous 

undertaking. And the benefits will be hard to see....at first.


----------



## KC Rock (Oct 28, 2021)

[QU
We, as a society, decided that an unacceptably high number of innocent people were dying as a result of people getting drunk, driving their cars, and causing accidents. Our response was to make it illegal to drive your car while drunk. Our response was to criminalize the activity that we actually wanted to stop. The undesirable activity still happens, but with markedly less frequency that it used to, and we have mechanisms in place to prosecute people who break that rule.

OTE="GunMonkeyIntl, post: 8898314, member: 357319"]

[/QUOTE]
If you'd stop right there your toady gun rants would make partial sense...for once. I feel sorry for those here that

refuse to see the obvious. Fewer guns, fewer shootings.


----------



## Danaus29 (Sep 12, 2005)

@KC Rock, so can we all assume you have no guns?


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

KC Rock said:


> Your missing the point. In general there will be no organized house to house search for guns. People with assault
> 
> weapons will be given a grace period to turn in their guns. As far as gangs, etc. that you are so worried about. Business
> 
> ...



You speak as thought I have no knowledge of gun control and mass shootings when in reality, your solutions is overly simplistic. 

I keep repeating myself and you seem unable to understand that gangs sell illegal firearms and use them often. 

In a country of stringent gun control, I would again ask you to review our mass shootings, which were virtually non existent before and very few after things were tightened up. 

Fewer guns didn’t help the people in Nova Scotia, isn’t helping 2 women recently killed by gang violence and I would challenge you again to review firearm statistics. 

Certainly I have concerns about gangs owning guns and so should you. Children are being caught in the crossfire of those gang shootings. Do the somehow have less value than children in schools?


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Why are gun deaths of such lower numbers in Canada if gun restrictions and regulations don't contribute to that lower incidence?


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

painterswife said:


> Why are gun deaths of such lower numbers in Canada if gun restrictions and regulations don't contribute to that lower incidence?



Our gun deaths were lower than the US before gun control and that is a question I’ve asked often that gets no response.


----------



## po boy (Jul 12, 2010)

painterswife said:


> Why are gun deaths of such lower numbers in Canada if gun restrictions and regulations don't contribute to that lower incidence?


Demographics


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

po boy said:


> Demographics


It could be, I also wondered about mental health care. Pre pandemic, it was easily accessed and one of the positives of universal healthcare is that it’s not costly.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

wr said:


> Our gun deaths were lower than the US before gun control and that is a question I’ve asked often that gets no response.


I would love to explore the question.

Do you think there is a clue in these statistics. Any measure of crime shows Canada compares favorable to the US, without exception





__





Loading…






www.nationmaster.com






Why is opiate use so much less in Canada? Does drug use raise crime levels?

Opiates use0.4% Ranked 9th.0.57% Ranked 3rd. 42% more than Canada





__





How Does Usa Crime Rate Compare With Canada? – leicestershirevillages.com







www.leicestershirevillages.com





Canada is ranked # 6 in the Global Peace Index while the US is # 128.
These are the measures used.
















Militarisation improved slightly in the region, based on fewer weapons imports into the US and reduced weapons exports and nuclear and heavy weapons capabilities in Canada. However, the US did increase its military expenditure (% GDP) and armed services personnel rate, while also reducing UN peacekeeping funding. Safety and Security deteriorated significantly in the region, as it was the only domain to deteriorate overall in both countries. The impact of terrorism lessened in the US, but increased in Canada.

The homicide rate rose in both countries, although significantly more in the US. Both countries’ homicide rates remain below the global average of seven per 100,000, but while the rate in Canada is 1.7, the rate in the US rose 9.7 per cent from 4.9 to 5.4. The country continues to struggle with gun violence, ranking 104 out of 163 for its homicide rate. 






__





Loading…






www.economicsandpeace.org





It appears our militarization effects the US score.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

HDRider said:


> I would love to explore the question.
> 
> Do you think there is a clue in these statistics. Any measure of crime shows Canada compares favorable to the US, without exception
> 
> ...


I believe that drug use increases crime rates. My community has a much higher rate than the national average and we also have a much higher opioid problem. 

Because of our proximity to Calgary as well as the reserve, the number of known dealers, drug houses and gang affiliation is very high. 

The Indian posse is real and has very strong ties to much more powerful gangs and we see many deaths weekly for overdoses as well as violent deaths.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

wr said:


> Our gun deaths were lower than in the US before gun control and that is a question I’ve asked often that gets no response.


Canada's gun deaths as a percentage of the population have always been lower than the US. Still, Canada's gun deaths by the percentage of the population have decreased with more gun regulation. I believe that gun regulation is one of the things that reduces gun deaths. It is however not the only thing.


----------



## Danaus29 (Sep 12, 2005)

painterswife said:


> Why are gun deaths of such lower numbers in Canada if gun restrictions and regulations don't contribute to that lower incidence?


If we could answer that question, we might find a way of reducing gun deaths.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

Danaus29 said:


> If we could answer that question, we might find a way of reducing gun deaths.



I agree and feel it’s something that needs to be looked at a lot more extensively.


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

Here is one way that it is being looked at-

Gerald Nadler is the Chairman, heading a committee doing just that right now. He feels raising the age to own a semi automatic rifle from 18 to 21 is pertinent. Here is a transcript of a short snippet.

Nadler-There are different ages for different purposes. We recognize 18 for the draft, we recognize 16 for driving in some states, 21 years old for drinking, so we recognize different ages for different purposes.

Thomas Massie a congressman from Kentucky, then interrupts.

Massie- Would the Chairman cosponsor a bill with me that would raise the age of the draft to 21?

Nadler- No.

Massie- But the Chairman feels that their brains aren't fully formed at ages 18, 19 or 20?

Nadler-...The the the research certainly does indicate that, in some respects. But if the selective service, eh, if the country needs people it needs people.

Massie- The country needs people whose brains aren't fully formed?

Nadler- In certain respects, yeah.


----------



## KC Rock (Oct 28, 2021)

I understand. I just don't th


wr said:


> You speak as thought I have no knowledge of gun control and mass shootings when in reality, your solutions is overly simplistic.
> 
> I keep repeating myself and you seem unable to understand that gangs sell illegal firearms and use them often.
> 
> ...


ing

Lots of different definitions of gun control. The solution is very simple. I'm not worried about gangs and their guns.

That is already in the process of being controlled. And with a ban on assault weapons it will be harder and harder

for criminals to possess them. I've offered no firearm statistics. You keep using past history to justify your somewhat

vague Ideas on stopping the slaughter. Wouldn't all those kids in texas still be alive if the shooter had been denied

the guns?


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

Lots of different definitions of gun control. The solution is very simple. I'm not worried about gangs and their guns. You should be. It would help you form a position to discuss the topic.

That is already in the process of being controlled. And with a ban on assault weapons it will be harder and harder. What process would that be?

for criminals to possess them. I've offered no firearm statistics. You should at least read a few.

vague Ideas on stopping the slaughter. Wouldn't all those kids in texas still be alive if the shooter had been denied

the guns? On what grounds?

What firearms do you currently own?


----------



## muleskinner2 (Oct 7, 2007)

po boy said:


> track these troubled kids to keep them from buying a firearm


Which kids are buying firearms? Eighteen isn't a kid. 

Disarming the population because a few nut jobs are killing people won't help anyone except the nut jobs.


----------



## po boy (Jul 12, 2010)

muleskinner2 said:


> Which kids are buying firearms? Eighteen isn't a kid.
> 
> Disarming the population because a few nut jobs are killing people won't help anyone except the nut jobs.


I talking about the Texas, Parkland, and Buffalo shooters. All of them had troubled backgrounds.

I have never backed disarming the population.


----------



## homesteadforty (Dec 4, 2007)

Danaus29 said:


> @KC Rock, so can we all assume you have no guns?


I think we can assume that @KC Rock doesn't have a lot of things.


----------



## muleskinner2 (Oct 7, 2007)

po boy said:


> I talking about the Texas, Parkland, and Buffalo shooters. All of them had troubled backgrounds.


How many of those were kids, who purchased a firearm?


----------



## po boy (Jul 12, 2010)

muleskinner2 said:


> How many of those were kids, who purchased a firearm?


2


----------



## muleskinner2 (Oct 7, 2007)

po boy said:


> 2


Who sold firearms to kids?


----------



## homesteadforty (Dec 4, 2007)

po boy said:


> 2


??? 18, 19, 18 y.o.


----------



## po boy (Jul 12, 2010)

muleskinner2 said:


> Who sold firearms to kids?


Can I tell Scooter?








How the 18-year-old suspect legally obtained guns before the Buffalo mass shooting


The 18-year-old man accused of mass murder at a Buffalo supermarket legally obtained an AR-15 style rifle, believed to be the same weapon he described modifying in a lengthy, racist rant posted online before the attack.




www.cnn.com












Uvalde gunman legally bought AR rifles days before shooting, law enforcement says


He brought only one of the rifles with him into the elementary school, according to the briefing. The other was left in a truck he crashed nearby.




www.texastribune.org


----------



## muleskinner2 (Oct 7, 2007)

po boy said:


> Can I tell Scooter?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Eighteen year olds aren't kids. If an eighteen year old man shows up at a school and shoots or threatens to shoot the students, then kill him. Don't demand that I give up my guns, cause it ain't going to happen.


----------



## link30240 (Aug 22, 2021)

po boy said:


> Can I tell Scooter?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


18 year olds are legal adults not kids. 


But besides that. the whole premise a 18 year old cant be trusted to legally buy a firearm is a ridicules' argument. through most our history actual kids well under 18 were out hunting and handling firearms unsupervised. 

The liberals are just trying to make another false argument to deter from the real reasons these tragedies have become more common. It is directly tied to liberal policies! No god, no family unit , no personal responsibility, fake racisms, fake genders, safe spaces ect.ect. 

dont let them shift blame! Liberals are 100% responsible for this mess!


----------



## po boy (Jul 12, 2010)

muleskinner2 said:


> Eighteen year olds aren't kids. If an eighteen year old man shows up at a school and shoots or threatens to shoot the students, then kill him. Don't demand that I give up my guns, cause it ain't going to happen.


Skinner, I refer to my two 40 yr and one 54 yr old sons as kids. 
I have never implied anyone give up their guns.


----------



## muleskinner2 (Oct 7, 2007)

link30240 said:


> 18 year olds are legal adults not kids.
> 
> 
> But besides that. the whole premise a 18 year old cant be trusted to legally buy a firearm is a ridicules' argument. through most our history actual kids well under 18 were out hunting and handling firearms unsupervised.
> ...


I began hunting on my own with a 410 shotgun when I was nine. I have seen ten year old Eskimo kids in Alaska take the family boat up river, spend a week or so in camp alone, and come back with a boat full of smoked fish and moose meat. I ran a trap line in the winter from ten years old to eighteen years old, when I joined the army. I carried a .22 revolver in a shoulder holster under my coat the whole time. So go cry a river to somebody else, about kids and guns. If your kids can't be trusted with a gun, that is your fault, not mine.


----------



## muleskinner2 (Oct 7, 2007)

po boy said:


> Skinner, I refer to my two 40 yr and one 54 yr old sons as kids.


Do you still treat them like kids?


----------



## po boy (Jul 12, 2010)

muleskinner2 said:


> Do you still treat them like kids?


Don't be silly!


----------



## muleskinner2 (Oct 7, 2007)

po boy said:


> Don't be silly!


Then why would you treat the law abiding adults in this country like kids, by taking away their legally owned rifles?


----------



## po boy (Jul 12, 2010)

muleskinner2 said:


> Then why would you treat the law abiding adults in this country like kids, by taking away their legally owned rifles?


Skinner, what is wrong with you? Where did I imply that?


----------



## muleskinner2 (Oct 7, 2007)

po boy said:


> Skinner, what is wrong with you? Where did I imply that?


You suggested that 18 year olds be tracked and prevented from purchasing firearms. Eighteen year olds are adults.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

KC Rock said:


> I would start with the stores that sell the assault guns. Get the receipts and go from there. Lots of articles on
> 
> how other countries have started and enforced gun control.


What, exactly is an "assault gun"?
Other countries don't have our Constitution either. 
Are YOU going to be the one confiscating guns? Or would you have someone else do it for you?


----------



## link30240 (Aug 22, 2021)

JeffreyD said:


> Are YOU going to be the one confiscating guns? Or would you have someone else do it for you?


LMAO, We all know the answer to that.  😛 KC will be hiding under a rock!


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

link30240 said:


> LMAO, We all know the answer to that.  😛 KC will be hiding under a rock!


That's what strikes me as a bit funny! All this talk about eliminating firearms yet no one wants to do it themselves. They all want someone else to do it for them, aka...the government.


----------



## po boy (Jul 12, 2010)

muleskinner2 said:


> You suggested that 18 year olds be tracked and prevented from purchasing firearms. Eighteen year olds are adults.





muleskinner2 said:


> You suggested that 18 year olds be tracked and prevented from purchasing firearms. Eighteen year olds are adults.


T
That was based on the history of three people. The Texas shooter was a known threat, the Parkland shooter had so many problems he should have been in a mental institution..


----------



## muleskinner2 (Oct 7, 2007)

KC Rock said:


> give up something...for now the assault weapons. Later? Who knows....


I am not "giving" up anything. When you come for mine, bring yours.


----------



## muleskinner2 (Oct 7, 2007)

po boy said:


> That was based on the history of three people.


Were these three people kids, or adults? Because you said "kids". Eighteen year olds are not kids.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

muleskinner2 said:


> I am not "giving" up any thing. When you come for mine, bring yours.


Brave keyboard warriors they are!! 😎


----------



## NEPA (Feb 21, 2015)

painterswife said:


> Canada's gun deaths as a percentage of the population have always been lower than the US. Still, Canada's gun deaths by the percentage of the population have decreased with more gun regulation. I believe that gun regulation is one of the things that reduces gun deaths. It is however not the only thing.


Here is my issue with your opinion. You are posting to a homesteading forum where the vast majority of us use firearms as tools in our everyday existence. We hunt, protect our property and livestock, protect ourselves and our loved ones. 

You always present your argument in generalities, while I see this as a very personal issue. MY guns don't kill people. MY guns aren't going to schools. My guns are tools used to sustain my lifestyle. Now please take this complicated issue very seriously and consider how to reduce gun crime without impacting lawful citizens. If you can present a plan that accomplishes this, I promise to listen.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

NEPA said:


> Here is my issue with your opinion. You are posting to a homesteading forum where the vast majority of us use firearms as tools in our everyday existence. We hunt, protect our property and livestock, protect ourselves and our loved ones.
> 
> You always present your argument in generalities, while I see this as a very personal issue. MY guns don't kill people. MY guns aren't going to schools. My guns are tools used to sustain my lifestyle. Now please take this complicated issue very seriously and consider how to reduce gun crime without impacting lawful citizens. If you can present a plan that accomplishes this, I promise to listen.


I believe guns are tools. We have guns. Most of my family have guns. Here and in Canada. Regulations doesn't change that.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

painterswife said:


> I believe guns are tools. We have guns. Most of my family have guns. Here and in Canada. Regulations doesn't change that.


They will and guns have been confiscated in Canada!


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

JeffreyD said:


> They will and guns have been confiscated in Canada!


They were in High River and in a couple of cases, the RCMP had to pay damages for trying to remove built in safes. 

That made them legally stored and if the RCMP couldn’t access them, neither could the bad guys but it’s irrelevant because they claimed they were only seizing unsecured firearms


----------



## Vjk (Apr 28, 2020)

homesteadforty said:


> Such profound intellect... nothing I say could possibly improve such astute commentary.


Since you can't refute the premise and can only attack ad hominem, then I can only assume you agree with me.


----------



## homesteadforty (Dec 4, 2007)

Vjk said:


> Any teacher that doesn't know the difference between a boy and a girl should be sent to GITMO. I'm sure ISIS will be happy to teach them the difference.


I include the original post for context:



Vjk said:


> Since you can't refute the premise and can only attack ad hominem, then I can only assume you agree with me.


There is a huge distinction between "can't refute the premise" and not bothering to refute the premise... my post falls into the latter category. The invocation of GITMO and ISIS is nothing more than over-the-top rhetoric that serves no useful purpose. I mean unless you've actually been to GITMO or dealt with ISIS yourself you have no real idea of what you speak... do you???

My comment was neither ad hominem nor ad nauseum but was singular, concise and directed at the content of your post.

You can assume as you wish... that would be your issue... not mine.


----------



## muleskinner2 (Oct 7, 2007)

painterswife said:


> I believe guns are tools. We have guns. Most of my family have guns. Here and in Canada. Regulations doesn't change that.


I have all kinds of tools, some of them make a loud noise and launch a projectile when you pull the switch. The government has no business regulating what kind of tools I have. I don't tell them how to waste money, they shouldn't tell me what kind of tools I can have.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

muleskinner2 said:


> I have all kinds of tools, some of them make a loud noise and launch a projectile when you pull the switch. The government has no business regulating what kind of tools I have. I don't tell them how to waste money, they shouldn't tell me what kind of tools I can have.


I assume you don't believe in drivers' licenses and tests either?


----------



## Fishindude (May 19, 2015)

If I thought for one minute that turning in my AR-15's would stop these idiotic killing sprees, (and if I trusted my government) I'd turn them in a heartbeat.
However, I also understand that idiots with bad intentions will do damage with whatever they can get their hands on, so giving up the guns is pointless. It just makes us more defenseless. Approx. 3,000 were killed in the 9/11 incidents using only box cutters.


----------



## link30240 (Aug 22, 2021)

painterswife said:


> I assume you don't believe in drivers' licenses and tests either?


Do you not understand the difference between a privilege and a right? 

You dont need to answer its a rhetorical question, I know exactly what you are doing and so does everyone else.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

link30240 said:


> Do you not understand the difference between a privilege and a right?
> 
> You dont need to answer its a rhetorical question, I know exactly what you are doing and so does everyone else.


No right is absolute.


----------



## muleskinner2 (Oct 7, 2007)

painterswife said:


> I assume you don't believe in drivers' licenses and tests either?


Driving is a privilege, not a right guarantied by the Constitution. It doesn't say the right to drive "Shall not be infringed". If the founding fathers didn't think that the 2nd amendment was the most important amendment, it wouldn't be the only amendment that says "Shall not be infringed".


----------



## link30240 (Aug 22, 2021)

Word play, Your rights are absolute, until they infringe on another's. If not then they are not actually a right. So save you ridicules argument about yelling fire in a movie theater, because doing so infringes on others, that is a overstep of rights. Not the same thing, So play your word games somewhere else!

That is why you have no right to kill a baby just because its in your womb, you are oversteping the babies rights! We could carless if you want to maim yourself, you have no right to take the babys life whether you helped create it or not!


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

muleskinner2 said:


> Driving is a privilege, not a right guarantied by the Constitution. It doesn't say the right to drive "Shall not be infringed". If the founding fathers didn't think that the 2nd amendment was the most important amendment, it wouldn't be the only amendment that says "Shall not be infringed".


No right is absolute.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

painterswife said:


> No right is absolute.


You are so repetitive and without original thought, nothing but dogma





__





There Are No ‘Absolute’ Rights | Constitutional Accountability Center


Nearly every idea in the Bill of Rights comes with restrictions and limitations. To think that the Second Amendment should be any different is absurd, writes Michael Tomasky. by Michael Tomasky Every time I write a column on guns, the howl arises that I am talking about a right that is...




www.theusconstitution.org


----------



## homesteadforty (Dec 4, 2007)

painterswife said:


> No right is absolute.





painterswife said:


> No right is absolute.


If you're trying some kind of mind control spell... I think it may have rebounded. You're not supposed to practce spells into a mirror


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

It is a simple sentence and completely accurate. No right is absolute, especially when written and enforced by humans.


----------



## muleskinner2 (Oct 7, 2007)

painterswife said:


> No right is absolute.


Except the one that says, "shall not be infringed". The mindless puppets on the left often say that you can't cry "fire" in a crowded theater. My reply has never changed. What if there is a "fire" in the crowded theater? It would not only be acceptable, it would be required. 

When the government is trying to disarm you, for your own good. There is a "fire" burning somewhere. I have been to countries where the population has been disarmed. Rhodesia, Angola, Mexico, Honduras, El Salvador, Columbia and others. They are all safe for those in power, for the citizens not so much.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

painterswife said:


> I assume you don't believe in drivers' licenses and tests either?


It depends on whether or not it's a right or a privilege. Driving a car is a privilege, owning a gun is a natural right.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

painterswife said:


> No right is absolute.


So wrong about so much so often.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

painterswife said:


> No right is absolute.


Wrong again....I don't think you understand what "absolute" means....


----------



## link30240 (Aug 22, 2021)

JeffreyD said:


> Wrong again....I don't think you understand what "absolute" means....


She doesnt even understand what a "right" means 

Liberals like word play though, some are much better at it then her though.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

JeffreyD said:


> Wrong again....I don't think you understand what "absolute" means....


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

painterswife said:


> No right is absolute.


Now click your heels.


----------

