# If you want to prevent another Newtown



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

*If you want to prevent another Newtown* 
it's time to write your representatives in Congress asking them to modify the _Gun-Free School Zones Act_ to allow school personnel and other lawful CCW holders to have firearms in the zones.

Do it for the children.


----------



## simi-steading (Sep 27, 2012)

I don't think I ever remember a mass shooting at a school before the gun free zone law... That was in 1990...


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

simi-steading said:


> I don't think I ever remember a mass shooting at a school *before the gun free zone law*... That was in 1990...


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Whitman

*



Charles Joseph Whitman (June 24, 1941 â August 1, 1966) was an engineering student and former Marine who killed 13 people and wounded 32 others in a shooting rampage located in and around the Tower of the University of Texas in Austin on the afternoon of August 1, 1966. Three persons were killed inside the university's tower, with 11 others murdered after Whitman fired at random targets from the 28th-floor observation deck of the Main Building. Whitman was shot and killed by Austin Police Officer, Houston McCoy.[1][2][3][4][5]
Prior to starting the shootings at the University of Texas, Whitman had murdered both his wife and mother in Austin.

Click to expand...














Approximately 20 minutes after first shooting from the observation deck, 

Whitman began to encounter return fire from both the authorities and armed civilians. 

At this point, Whitman chose to fire through waterspouts located on each side of the tower walls. This protected him from gunfire below, but limited his range of targets. Police sharpshooter Marion Lee reported from a small airplane that he had observed a single sniper firing from the observation deck. Lee tried to shoot Whitman from the plane, but the turbulence proved too great. Whitman shot at the plane, and it moved off to circle from a greater distance.

Click to expand...

*


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

A sheriff in Butler County endorses the idea of firearms for teachers.

http://www.journal-news.com/news/news/sheriff-to-add-patrols-suggests-to-put-guns-in-sch/nTYXm/


----------



## Hollowdweller (Jul 13, 2011)

I don't know. In rare instances it might help but in a number of mass shootings there have been people with guns and it either happened too fast or they held back because there was no safe way to return fire.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

Hollowdweller said:


> I don't know. In rare instances it might help but in a number of mass shootings there have been people with guns and it either happened too fast or they held back because there was no safe way to return fire.


What instances were these?


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

Gun free zones have been tried, now let's try armed teachers and administrators! It's like the war on drugs, how's that working out so far?


----------



## Pops2 (Jan 27, 2003)

Police & other govt employees acting in official capacity w/govt owned weapons are exempt from most gun laws. SO, if the states choose to order the school districts to select, train & arm a number of employes there would be no law preventing it.


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

Pops2 said:


> Police & other govt employees acting in official capacity w/govt owned weapons are exempt from most gun laws. SO, if the states choose to order the school districts to select, train & arm a number of employes there would be no law preventing it.


The federal school zone law should be modified just to provide an alternative talking point on the national level. Let's see liberals argue against teachers protecting students. Let's see those heads spin. They won't know whether to  or go blind.


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

Yea, teachers with guns is the answer. :smack

How many of them blow a gasket, raising many of todays future maniacs? What if that one punk, gets a little too lippy?

All of the shootings happened in under 5 minutes, so who knows, if an armed school official, could have helped?

Will the Teachers of tomorrow be nurtures our our children's minds, or armed guards, with a syllabus.?


----------



## pancho (Oct 23, 2006)

plowjockey said:


> Yea, teachers with guns is the answer. :smack
> 
> How many of them blow a gasket, raising many of todays future maniacs? What if that one punk, gets a little too lippy?
> 
> ...


 
School kids need a little disipline.
Pop a cap in the backside of a couple and disipline would improve.


----------



## zant (Dec 1, 2005)

plowjockey said:


> Yea, teachers with guns is the answer. :smack
> 
> How many of them blow a gasket, raising many of todays future maniacs? What if that one punk, gets a little too lippy?
> 
> ...


 The teachers of today DON'T "nuture"childrens minds...but nice meaningless emotional blather....


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

Obviously the cops were too far away to help. I don't support requiring teachers to carry. Probably many, like the ones here, hunt or are otherwise familiar with firearms. I get a kick of how many pictures of young girls with their first deer show up in the paper. That's nothing new. Woman way past retirement age hunt here.

If it works in Israel, I don't see why something similar would work here. There's plenty of history that shows crime drops when people can defend themselves. As for teachers blowing a gasket, if that was the case we would be reading about teachers shooting up schools. There's nothing to prevent a teacher from taking a firearm to school and killing now. It should be obvious by now that no law is going to stop a determined wannabe killer.

Come to think of it, what percentage of CCW holders go berserk and go on a rampage?


----------



## Ozarks Tom (May 27, 2011)

Several years ago my wife worked contract worker's comp adjuster for the Dallas ISD. Her office was next to a school in a part of town the cops didn't like going to in the daytime. Obviously, it was a "gun free zone", but she isn't a "smart free woman". A well known, but well kept secret among the other women in the office was the fact that she "carried". When a disgruntled comp claimant would threaten one of the adjusters on the phone, they would call the police and then find a reason to gather near my wife. She always had company to and from the parking lot also. She's not the type to scream, run, or hide.

Until the media stops making celebrities out of these nutjobs, guns, and somebody willing to use them are the only answer.


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

zant said:


> The teachers of today DON'T "nuture"childrens minds...but nice meaningless emotional blather....


Not according to my kids, at least some teachers, but your point is fair enough.

So turning _babysitters_, into _armed babysitters_ is the answer? Make SWAT part of their college teaching curriculum,.

Might as well just home school, since there will 5 AR-15's at the ready. :duel:


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

I don't think we need to turn schools into armed fortresses. The power of suggestion works. As long as the potential killer thinks teachers are armed that will go a long ways towards safety. It might be as simple as a sign outside the school stating that CCW holders are to check in with the principal.

The right people will get the message.


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

Darren said:


> I don't think we need to turn schools into armed fortresses. The power of suggestion works. As long as the potential killer thinks teachers are armed that will go a long ways towards safety. It might be as simple as a sign outside the school stating that CCW holders are to check in with the principal.
> 
> The right people will get the message.


This child shot his mother in the head "multiple times", before going to the school.

. It was too late for a message.


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

plowjockey said:


> This child shot his mother in the head "multiple times". It was too late for a message.


How many would have been killed after that if teachers or administrators at the school had carry permits? We don't know do we?. But there is a chance the carnage wouldn't have happened. I like that possible outcome. Better 2 than 26. Don't you agree?


----------



## fantasymaker (Aug 28, 2005)

The problem wont be solved with defense, like others have said there are to many dead before the problem is even noticed.


----------



## dranger1108 (Aug 7, 2010)

Hollowdweller said:


> I don't know. In rare instances it might help but in a number of mass shootings there have been people with guns and it either happened too fast or they held back because there was no safe way to return fire.


Ever hear of the Pearl River, MS shooting? Probably not. Why? Cause the asst. Principle stopped the kid with his .45 pistol that he had retrieved from his car... It doesn't get the media's attention when the bad guy is stopped...:awh:


----------



## Tiempo (May 22, 2008)

plowjockey said:


> This child shot his mother in the head "multiple times", before going to the school...


With her own gun(s). Fat lot of good they did her.


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

Darren said:


> How many would have been killed after that if teachers or administrators at the school had carry permits? We don't know do we?. But there is a chance the carnage wouldn't have happened. I like that possible outcome. Better 2 than 26. Don't you agree?


Yes, 2 is better than 26. 

Unfortunately, there is more than one school in the U.S, there are thousands, actually, many in tougher neighborhoods, where kids are not even impressed at the sight of a gun, except maybe wishing they had it, themselves.

How many times will teachers carrying guns, actually become _the _problem, involving angry and strong youths, or kids with severe mental problems - who attend these schools and may not even think twice, about jumping an armed teacher..

We still live in the real world.


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

I remember that. By stopping the kid, the principal kept him from going to another school and killing more students. How about that? Armed people at schools can and have prevented killings. There's your proof. Who else thinks it won't save lives?


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

plowjockey said:


> Yes, 2 is better than 26.
> 
> Unfortunately, there is more than one school in the U.S, there are thousands, actually, many in tougher neighborhoods, where kids are not even impressed at the sight of gun..
> 
> ...


I am talking real world. CCW is just that ... concealed. It's never pulled out for show and tell. Nor for discipline issues. It only comes into play when an armed student or other intruder is spotted.


----------



## plowhand (Aug 14, 2005)

I suppose the best thing to do is just blow up the whole nation, then we won't have any more problems for awhile.{I decided I better say this is a piece of sarcasm, for the storm troopers arrive}
In some instances it would help, in some it wouldn't. If an individual wants to do such a thing they'll figure out something. The gentleman in the OK bombing didn't use a gun. 
I just wonder if a couple of security guards with shotguns wouldn't have prevented this,just loaded with bean bag shells.
It's different with folks now, the way they talk you'd think they'd rather have folks murdered than protected. 
Funny thing is how little of this happened years ago, when there were guns in the students vehicles to go hunting after school....How many of these incedents then? 

As far as that goes,How much better off are we with a no violence school policy. Why not let em fight it out,children are like that sometimes. I rather my child get a black eye or a bloody nose,or deal one out, than give or get a bullet.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

plowjockey said:


> Yes, 2 is better than 26.
> 
> Unfortunately, there is more than one school in the U.S, there are thousands, actually, many in tougher neighborhoods, where kids are not even impressed at the sight of a gun, except maybe wishing they had it, themselves.
> 
> ...


We've tried it the liberals way, gun free zones, how's that working out so far? Not good, not good at all! Prohibition didn't work, the war on drugs isn't working, the war on guns isn't working either. Time to change tactics before more kids are killed because of assinine liberal laws! Shame on them for not wanting to protect our kids to the best of their ability. Shame, shame, shame on them!


----------



## pancho (Oct 23, 2006)

dranger1108 said:


> Ever hear of the Pearl River, MS shooting? Probably not. Why? Cause the asst. Principle stopped the kid with his .45 pistol that he had retrieved from his car... It doesn't get the media's attention when the bad guy is stopped...:awh:


It wasn't the Pearl River, Ms. It is Pearl Ms. 
The kid killed his mother then came to school and killed 2 kids wounding a few more. He was leaving when a teacher got a gun from his car and stepped out in front of his auto. The teacher held him until police arrived.
The kid trys every year to get a pardon. Last year he had a good chance as our govenor was pardoning a lot of killers.


----------



## simi-steading (Sep 27, 2012)

Bearfootfarm said:


> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Whitman
> 
> *
> 
> ...


Oh yeah. kinda forgot about that.... 

And then the second one that comes to mind was actually the government doing the shooting and 4 innocent people died... 

Huh.. maybe we need to ban the government from having guns too????


----------



## Narshalla (Sep 11, 2008)

plowjockey said:


> Yea, teachers with guns is the answer. :smack
> 
> How many of them blow a gasket, raising many of todays future maniacs? What if that one punk, gets a little too lippy?
> 
> ...


Does is ever occur to you that someone like that shouldn't be teaching in the first place?

That if you can't trust a person with a CCW, then you really shouldn't be trusting them with your children?



plowjockey said:


> This child shot his mother in the head "multiple times", before going to the school.
> 
> . It was too late for a message.


At 20, this person was in no a\way a child, and, in fact, _did_ get the message. After all, he _knew_ that there would be no guns in his chose shooting gallery, and he was right.

In fact, he kept shooting until people with guns (the police) started to arrive, and _then_ chose to shoot himself. In other words, as long as he was unopposed, he felt safe to kill; once the opposition arrived, he gave up.

I'd say he got the message quite well.


----------



## poppy (Feb 21, 2008)

plowjockey said:


> Yea, teachers with guns is the answer. :smack
> 
> How many of them blow a gasket, raising many of todays future maniacs? What if that one punk, gets a little too lippy?
> 
> ...


Who do they ALWAYS call when there is a problem at school? They call the people with the guns (cops). There is no rational difference between the cops and school staff who are trained to use weapons. Many teachers are more mentally stable than many cops.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

plowjockey said:


> Yea, teachers with guns is the answer. :smack


The chances are hopelessly remote that they will introduce firearms into schools. Doing that carries inherent problems of its own.

I'll go on record right now as saying that it will never, EVER happen.


----------



## KnowOneSpecial (Sep 12, 2010)

Few problems with this...

1. What happens if a teacher shoots a child? Who is liable? How would you feel if it was your kid? 

2. What happens if a child gets the gun from a teacher? In high school we had a tiny teacher who weighed 100 pounds dripping wet. It wouldn't be much of a fight for most of us to get a gun away from her. I may be bad at math but I think that having hormonal, impulsive, brats around guns is a bad equasion.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

KnowOneSpecial said:


> Few problems with this...
> 
> 1. What happens if a teacher shoots a child? Who is liable? How would you feel if it was your kid?
> 
> 2. What happens if a child gets the gun from a teacher? In high school we had a tiny teacher who weighed 100 pounds dripping wet. It wouldn't be much of a fight for most of us to get a gun away from her. I may be bad at math but I think that having hormonal, impulsive, brats around guns is a bad equasion.


Yes. Introducing firearms into schools is a TERRIBLE idea!


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

KnowOneSpecial said:


> Few problems with this...
> 
> 1. What happens if a teacher shoots a child? Who is liable? How would you feel if it was your kid?
> 
> 2. What happens if a child gets the gun from a teacher? In high school we had a tiny teacher who weighed 100 pounds dripping wet. It wouldn't be much of a fight for most of us to get a gun away from her. I may be bad at math but I think that having hormonal, impulsive, brats around guns is a bad equasion.


We had an indoor shooting range in the main building at North Hollywood High! No one ever got shot! We used to carry guns on the rack in the back window, loaded. Try that now! No bad equasion here! This was around the late seventies!


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

Nevada said:


> Yes. Introducing firearms into schools is a TERRIBLE idea!


We see where that nonsense has gotten us don't we! We used to take guns AND knives to school everyday. What changed? I can tell you, but as a liberal, you won't like the truth!


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Nevada said:


> Yes. Introducing firearms into schools is a TERRIBLE idea!


It's the ONLY thing that can stop the problem.
When it happens, the FIRST thing anyone does is call someone to BRING GUNS

You need to stop and THINK about it for once


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> 2. What happens if a child gets the gun from a teacher? In high school we had a tiny teacher who weighed 100 pounds dripping wet. It wouldn't be much of a fight for most of us to get a gun away from her. I may be bad at math but I think that having hormonal, impulsive, brats around guns is a bad equasion.


No one said EVERY teacher has to have one.
Anyone can make up *extreme* examples.
It's not being REALISTIC at all


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

e


Nevada said:


> The chances are hopelessly remote that they will introduce firearms into schools. Doing that carries inherent problems of its own.
> 
> I'll go on record right now as saying that it will never, EVER happen.


*It already has Nevada.* The districts where it's allowed haven't had problems. We already have experience with CCW in schools in this country. 

It seems some here don't understand the concept of CCW. The students would never know if a teacher had a firearm. It's quite likely only a few would have a CCW.

People here seem to think teachers would pull out a firearm for situations that would involve an altercation of any kind. Any CCW class involves learning state law and the added restrictions imposed on someone who carries concealed. It makes you more subject to penalties in many cases. In the case of a teacher, not only would they be subject to prosecution, they would probably also lose their license. Teachers would probably have a heavier burden imposed by CCW than the average CCW holder.

More than likely the teachers themselves wouldn't know which teacher had a CCW.


----------



## KnowOneSpecial (Sep 12, 2010)

Bearfootfarm said:


> No one said EVERY teacher has to have one.
> Anyone can make up *extreme* examples.
> It's not being REALISTIC at all


So now you're changing it to where only big beefy teachers can carry? What if the 100 pound english teacher wanted to carry? Would you take away her "rights" because she was too small?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> So now you're changing it to where only big beefy teachers can carry? What if the 100 pound english teacher wanted to carry? Would you take away her "rights" because she was too small?


LOL. I'm not "changing" anything.
You gave a silly example, and I told you how it could be avoided
She can carry if she wants, and if she's* trained*, no one will take the gun away from her.
You're just grasping at straws for the sake of another argument because your first one failed


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

Bearfootfarm said:


> No one said EVERY teacher has to have one.
> Anyone can make up *extreme* examples.
> It's not being REALISTIC at all


I once had a city official tell me a non-running car couldn't be parked in a yard because the gasoline in the tank could explode. I about  myself when I heard that. It was all I could do to stifle my laughter. ound: I had a coughing fit before I finally got back on the phone and resumed the conversation.

From now on when you hear or read something unrealistic just think about all those car gasoline tanks that are reported as they blow up ever day. Flaming just took on a new meaning if you catch my drift.


----------



## Oldcountryboy (Feb 23, 2008)

Now how do you know that a person with a CCW permit wont go looney for some reason and start another mass shooting while on school grounds? He maybe fine when he applied and took his trainning and testing. But a year later, or more, he suddenly goes off his rocker for some reason or another. Then steps foot on school grounds, a shopping mall, or a theater, and goes on a shooting rampage. 

You don't know! Nobody knows! So why take a chance? Either stiffer gun control or anyone with a ccw permit should have a yearly sychiatric evaluation if they're going to be allowed to enter school grounds. Even then, your still taking a chance.


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

Oldcountryboy said:


> Now how do you know that a person with a CCW permit wont go looney for some reason and start another mass shooting while on school grounds? He maybe fine when he applied and took his trainning and testing. But a year later, or more, he suddenly goes off his rocker for some reason or another. Then steps foot on school grounds, a shopping mall, or a theater, and goes on a shooting rampage.
> 
> You don't know! Nobody knows! So why take a chance? Either stiffer gun control or anyone with a ccw permit should have a yearly sychiatric evaluation if they're going to be allowed to enter school grounds. Even then, your still taking a chance.


Rather than hypothesize, why don't you check how many CCW holders have done that. It might be a good idea to find out how long CCW has been around too. Meanwhile experience with CCW holders in schools hasn't shown any problems.


----------



## jaredI (Aug 6, 2011)

Oldcountryboy said:


> Now how do you know that a person with a CCW permit wont go looney for some reason and start another mass shooting while on school grounds? He maybe fine when he applied and took his trainning and testing. But a year later, or more, he suddenly goes off his rocker for some reason or another. Then steps foot on school grounds, a shopping mall, or a theater, and goes on a shooting rampage.
> 
> You don't know! Nobody knows! So why take a chance? Either stiffer gun control or anyone with a ccw permit should have a yearly sychiatric evaluation if they're going to be allowed to enter school grounds. Even then, your still taking a chance.


 THERE ARE NO GUARANTEES IN LIFE. The Bureau of Justice statistics prove CCW holders are among the most law abiding citizens in the nation. *WHAT IF* the guy buying beer is going to drive drunk (potentially killing someone) better give him a yearly psych exam before he can purchase beer. *What if *the stress from a marriage causes one to go off the deep end, better give all married people yearly psych exams. *What if* working more then 8 hours a day stresses someone out enough to go off the deep end, better give anyone who works more then 40 hours a week, yearly psych exams. What if, what if, what if... big stinking deal. Punish those who commit crimes, and stop trying to punish society for a select few screw ups


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

jaredI said:


> THERE ARE NO GUARANTEES IN LIFE. The Bureau of Justice statistics prove CCW holders are among the most law abiding citizens in the nation. *WHAT IF* the guy buying beer is going to drive drunk (potentially killing someone) better give him a yearly psych exam before he can purchase beer. *What if *the stress from a marriage causes one to go off the deep end, better give all married people yearly psych exams. *What if* working more then 8 hours a day stresses someone out enough to go off the deep end, better give anyone who works more then 40 hours a week, yearly psych exams. What if, what if, what if... big stinking deal. Punish those who commit crimes, and stop trying to punish society for a select few screw ups


You just read the equivalent of a junk car's gas tank spontaneously exploding. ound: We all know how often that happens.


----------



## Oldcountryboy (Feb 23, 2008)

JeffreyD said:


> We had an indoor shooting range in the main building at North Hollywood High! No one ever got shot! We used to carry guns on the rack in the back window, loaded. Try that now! No bad equasion here! This was around the late seventies!


Things were a whole lot different back in the late 70's. When I was growing up in the 70's I had a friend who stayed the night with me so we could go rabbit hunting on a saturday morning. On Friday morning he boarded his school bus with a shotgun and a box of shells. Gave them to the driver to keep till he got off the bus. When he got off the bus at school he took the shotgun and shells to the principles office. 

When school was out that eveing he boarded my school bus with the shotgun and shells and once again we gave them to the driver to keep for the short ride to my house. 

We hunted that Friday evening and Saturday morning and that afternoon his mom came to get him. We had a great time and killed several rabbits. 

Also back in the 70's about every boy in school carried a pocket knife. A lot of times we would go to school with a knife and come home with a different knife. We done a lot of trading.

But things are different now days. There's a lot more violence on t.v. and there's all kinds of violent vedio games that kids grow up with. So they have purty much spent a life time learning to kill. 

Not to mention that now days our rifles don't look like hunting rifles anymore, they look like military assult rifles and I believe that's why a lot of people find them interesting.


----------



## jaredI (Aug 6, 2011)

Oldcountryboy said:


> Things were a whole lot different back in the late 70's. When I was growing up in the 70's I had a friend who stayed the night with me so we could go rabbit hunting on a saturday morning. On Friday morning he boarded his school bus with a shotgun and a box of shells. Gave them to the driver to keep till he got off the bus. When he got off the bus at school he took the shotgun and shells to the principles office.
> 
> When school was out that eveing he boarded my school bus with the shotgun and shells and once again we gave them to the driver to keep for the short ride to my house.
> 
> ...


I grew up in those days too. I remember taking guns to school, hanging in a gun rack in the school parking lot. Every boy in class was almost expected to have a knife.
However, I don't think it's the video games, or tv, or music. My own personal belief is its all about parenting. In the 70's there were still many stay at home moms. Do we have the 24/7 parental guidance in the formative years of today's children?? I'd wager we don't.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> You don't know! Nobody knows! So why take a chance? Either stiffer gun control or anyone with a ccw permit should have a yearly sychiatric evaluation if they're going to be *allowed to enter school grounds*. Even then, your still taking a chance.


GUNS NOT the PROBLEM, and the shooter wasn't ALLOWED to enter either.

.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Nevada said:


> The chances are hopelessly remote that they will introduce firearms into schools. Doing that carries inherent problems of its own.
> 
> I'll go on record right now as saying that it *will never, EVER happen*.


Google "TX school guardian plan"



> It allowed teachers to carry concealed weapons on *school* grounds *...*


----------



## SteveD(TX) (May 14, 2002)

KnowOneSpecial said:


> Few problems with this...
> 
> 1. What happens if a teacher shoots a child? Who is liable? How would you feel if it was your kid?
> 
> 2. What happens if a child gets the gun from a teacher? In high school we had a tiny teacher who weighed 100 pounds dripping wet. It wouldn't be much of a fight for most of us to get a gun away from her. I may be bad at math but I think that having hormonal, impulsive, brats around guns is a bad equasion.


1. What happens if a shooter shoots 20 children with no one there to protect them?

2. Do NOT arm all teachers, no one is suggesting that. I think common sense says to let the CHL holders to be armed, with additional training. I'm thinking more of the veteran who has a knowledge of weapons, perhaps someone with combat training. And definitely someone who has the ability to act in a crisis and take down hellbent on slaughtering children. If no teacher like that exists in the school, then hire someone who IS qualified.


----------



## jaredI (Aug 6, 2011)

KnowOneSpecial said:


> Few problems with this...
> 
> 1. What happens if a teacher shoots a child? Who is liable? How would you feel if it was your kid?
> 
> 2. What happens if a child gets the gun from a teacher? In high school we had a tiny teacher who weighed 100 pounds dripping wet. It wouldn't be much of a fight for most of us to get a gun away from her. I may be bad at math but I think that having hormonal, impulsive, brats around guns is a bad equasion.


 1st, If an armed teacher killed my child by accident while trying to protect his/her class, not only would I thank that teacher for trying their best to protect my kid, I would do all I could to make the teacher a hero. Would I be happy my kid was dead? Absolutely not, but if an intruder, intent on harming kids in the school didn't meet sufficient resistance, my kid would have a better then average chance of being killed anyways. At least someone tried to save my child.
2nd, A child getting a gun away from a teacher. Well, prosecute the heck out of them, if they survive the other teachers with guns.


----------



## Oldcountryboy (Feb 23, 2008)

What if the teacher goes looney, has a nervous breakdown? I remember when I was in 7th grade us students were so obnoxious and onery that we caused our Science teacher to have a nervous breakdown. She went bazerk on us! 

Now what if she'd had permission to carry a concealed handgun on her and had that nervous breakdown? She might had just shot us all! Remembering those days I would just about say we all deserved it. But our parents wouldn't have thought that. Society wouldn't have thought that.

Allowing teachers to carry handguns isn't the answer either. If you have a little old meesely teacher of 110, 115 pounds trying to wrastle a 250 pound football player over her weapon which he knows she's carrying, who do you think is going to end up with the gun? How many kids is going to get killed with her gun before another teacher from down the hall has the guts to come running to try to shoot the assassin. Then what happens if the assassin kills the that teacher before he/she can kill fire a shot? He might end up with another handgun to use!


----------



## jaredI (Aug 6, 2011)

Oldcountryboy said:


> What if the teacher goes looney, has a nervous breakdown? I remember when I was in 7th grade us students were so obnoxious and onery that we caused our Science teacher to have a nervous breakdown. She went bazerk on us!
> 
> Now what if she'd had permission to carry a concealed handgun on her and had that nervous breakdown? She might had just shot us all! Remembering those days I would just about say we all deserved it. But our parents wouldn't have thought that. Society wouldn't have thought that.
> 
> Allowing teachers to carry handguns isn't the answer either. If you have a little old meesely teacher of 110, 115 pounds trying to wrastle a 250 pound football player over her weapon which he knows she's carrying, who do you think is going to end up with the gun? How many kids is going to get killed with her gun before another teacher from down the hall has the guts to come running to try to shoot the assassin. Then what happens if the assassin kills the that teacher before he/she can kill fire a shot? He might end up with another handgun to use!


AGAIN??? more WHAT IF, WHAT IF, WHAT IF.... stop punishing people because they MIGHT do something. What if's don't mean jack crap.


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

Oldcountryboy said:


> What if the teacher goes looney, has a nervous breakdown? I remember when I was in 7th grade us students were so obnoxious and onery that we caused our Science teacher to have a nervous breakdown. She went bazerk on us!
> 
> Now what if she'd had permission to carry a concealed handgun on her and had that nervous breakdown? She might had just shot us all! Remembering those days I would just about say we all deserved it. But our parents wouldn't have thought that. Society wouldn't have thought that.
> 
> Allowing teachers to carry handguns isn't the answer either. If you have a little old meesely teacher of 110, 115 pounds trying to wrastle a 250 pound football player over her weapon which he knows she's carrying, who do you think is going to end up with the gun? How many kids is going to get killed with her gun before another teacher from down the hall has the guts to come running to try to shoot the assasin. Then what happens if the assasin kills the that teacher before he/she can kill fire a shot? He might end up with another handgun to use!


What would stop a teacher from taking a firearm into a school and shooting students now? If you think about it, that happens about as often as those gas tanks in junk cars explode spontaneously.

I think it takes a special person to be a teacher. I think the same quality is why you don't read about teachers killing students. That quality is caring. They're committed to a life of service. 

I think a teacher who knows how to use a concealed weapon would be one of the most deadliest obstacles to an intruder trying to harm their kids. From what I've seen many teachers care more about their kids than the parents.


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

Might be a liability issue, also.

Even though this school, will probably be sued plenty, for this shooting, Insurance companies (who really call the shots - (no pun intended), any more), may likely also be saying "NO", to having armed teachers, at schools, nationwide.

Same reason they don't allow guns, or attempts to foil robberies, at Autozone and other companies.


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

plowjockey said:


> Might be a liability issue, also.
> 
> Even though this school, will probably be sued plenty, for this shooting, Insurance companies (who really call the shots - (no pun intended), any more), may likely also be saying "NO", to having armed teachers, at schools, nationwide.
> 
> Same reason they don't allow guns, or attempts to foil robberies, at Autozone and other companies.


Did I just hear another gas tank on a junk car explode?

I can't speak for other states but in West Virginia the state board of risk covers many of the state agencies. It's the state insuring the state, CCW in schools wouldn't be an insurance problem here. The fact that some boards keep armed police officers in schools further illustrates how insurance is not a problem. The school board could be held liable since they approved the presence.

The elected officials on the education boards of Texas obviously faced the same issues when they allowed CCW in their schools after Columbine. In other words, it's already been done. If Texas can do it, why can't it be done in other states?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> *What if* the teacher goes looney, has a nervous breakdown?


You can "WHAT IF" anything to death.

What if you *just admit* nothing *stops* killers EXCEPT honest ARMED people?


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Bearfootfarm said:


> You can "WHAT IF" anything to death.
> 
> What if you *just admit* nothing *stops* killers EXCEPT honest ARMED people?


Introducing firearms into elementary schools is a terrible idea.


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

Nevada said:


> Introducing firearms into elementary schools is a terrible idea.


What do you have to say about the Guardian Plan in Texas, Nevada?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Nevada said:


> Introducing firearms into elementary schools is a terrible idea.


Not if your intention is to PROTECT them
We've seen what happens when you DON'T *allow* them

Then why did they start the SRO program?
Why did they CALL people *with GUNS* when they needed help?

*Why do BO's children have GUNS to protect THEM?*
*Are his BETTER than ours?*


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> What do you have to say about the Guardian Plan in Texas, Nevada?


I'm guessing you won't get an answer to that one


----------



## SageLady (Jun 10, 2008)

A ban on assault guns, and an armed security guard at the front and back door of every school would stop future school shootings.

We NEED to PROTECT our children. I'd be more then willing to pay more in taxes to do so...


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

Bearfootfarm said:


> I'm guessing you won't get an answer to that one


The saying "Plain as the nose on your face" doesn't apply to some and "seeing is believing" doesn't apply either.


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

SageLady said:


> A ban on assault guns, and an armed security guard at the front and back door of every school would stop future school shootings.
> 
> We NEED to PROTECT our children. I'd be more then willing to pay more in taxes to do so...


The feds just allowed the money for the school security program to lapse. You won't see Congress doing a mea culpa over that. Instead they'll try to ban so-called assault rifles and, if some get their way, hunting rifles that have been used since the early 1900s.

What do you think about the fact that the woman had a so-called assault rifle in a state that already banned them? Even the state of NJ where the brother lives whose ID the shooter had has a ban on so-called assault rifles.

Unless they destroy every so-called assault rifle in this country and that includes the ones held by the police and military, you still have the risk of another Newtown. The state of NJ refused to give a concealed weapons permit to an individual that was a National Guard armorer. He had keys to an armory full of military weapons that he carried back and forth to work. Someone could attack him and steal rifles much more lethal than the one allegedly used at Newtow.

Never underestimate the resourcefulness of someone with deadly intent. Jumping on the ban the ugly so-called assault rifle bandwagon does exactly that.


----------



## Steve L. (Feb 23, 2004)

Hollowdweller said:


> ... in a *number of mass shootings* there have been people with guns and it either happened too fast or they held back because there was no safe way to return fire...


You've been asked before - what ones?


----------



## beowoulf90 (Jan 13, 2004)

Oldcountryboy said:


> What if the teacher goes looney, has a nervous breakdown? I remember when I was in 7th grade us students were so obnoxious and onery that we caused our Science teacher to have a nervous breakdown. She went bazerk on us!
> 
> Now what if she'd had permission to carry a concealed handgun on her and had that nervous breakdown? She might had just shot us all! Remembering those days I would just about say we all deserved it. But our parents wouldn't have thought that. Society wouldn't have thought that.
> 
> Allowing teachers to carry handguns isn't the answer either. If you have a little old meesely teacher of 110, 115 pounds trying to wrastle a 250 pound football player over her weapon which he knows she's carrying, who do you think is going to end up with the gun? How many kids is going to get killed with her gun before another teacher from down the hall has the guts to come running to try to shoot the assassin. Then what happens if the assassin kills the that teacher before he/she can kill fire a shot? He might end up with another handgun to use!



WHAT IF the criminal steals some weapons and goes into the schools and shoots the teachers and children?

The point I'm trying to make is; you can always come up with a thousand "what if's" for anything.. 

But we already know that cowards and crazies will always pick the least protected places to do their killing.. So the solution to the problem is to make the schools a protected place..

Two facts we know from the last couple of shootings.

1. They shoot themselves when confronted by an armed citizen, thus stopping the deadly assault..

2. They target places where they won't be confronted by an armed citizen.

Also search Bartlesville OK and see that the police did stop a school shooting and arrested the criminal at 5 am on the same as the CT shooting. 

From the reports I've seen, which have been few, the 18 yo was bored and wanted his 15 mins of infamy.. Of course with the shooting in CT this won't get any press, not that that is a bad thing, it's just the way reporters work..No sense in reporting a crime they were able to stop before it got violent...

Also there was a shootout and stand off in Harrisburg PA this week lasting 9 hours. The result thus far that has been reported is the shooter shot himself. Other than the criminal only one officer suffered a shot to the hand. 

So law enforcement is out there doing their jobs...

Also another what if

What if a government employee decides to go "postal"? Does that mean government employees shouldn't be allowed to own firearms?


----------



## jaredI (Aug 6, 2011)

SageLady said:


> A ban on assault guns, and an armed security guard at the front and back door of every school would stop future school shootings.
> 
> We NEED to PROTECT our children. I'd be more then willing to pay more in taxes to do so...


 The armed security guard would be a good start. Now what ironclad proof do you have that banning anything works? We had an assault weapons ban for 10 years, it did nothing. We have banned cocaine, heroine, and pot, again to no avail. We tried to ban alcohol, it didn't work. We banned drinking and driving, yet thousands are killed every year because of it. hmmmmmmmmmm
As you can see, I have proof that banning stuff doesn't work, yet when some tragedy happens many people jump the bandwagon that wants to destroy our constitutional rights.


----------



## Oldcountryboy (Feb 23, 2008)

Bearfootfarm said:


> You can "WHAT IF" anything to death.
> 
> What if you *just admit* nothing *stops* killers EXCEPT honest ARMED people?


Sure, but does that mean another 20 children will get killed before some teacher down the hall has a chance and bravery to come to the rescue. How many people with a handgun would be brave enough to challenge someone holding a AR15 or Bushmaster that holds 30 to 100 round clips and shoots some 80 rounds in less then a minute or so. 



SageLady said:


> A ban on assault guns, and an armed security guard at the front and back door of every school would stop future school shootings.
> 
> We NEED to PROTECT our children. I'd be more then willing to pay more in taxes to do so...


Yea right! This fiscal year our school laid off half its support personel and shut down one school bus in order to stay under budget. An armed security guard makes a whole lot more money then a janitor, teachers aid, or a bus driver. Most small rural schools would not be able to afford armed security guards.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Nevada said:
> 
> 
> > Introducing firearms into elementary schools is a terrible idea.
> ...


My concern is that if you introduce guns into schools that there will be more mishaps than saves. If statistics for private gun use are any indication, it's not going to be successful.

Even if just the administrator has a gun, there are about 130,000 schools in the country. Introducing 130,000 guns into the public school system is going to come with its own set of problems.

BO's children have guns?


----------



## jaredI (Aug 6, 2011)

Oldcountryboy said:


> Sure, but does that mean another 20 children will get killed before some teacher down the hall has a chance and bravery to come to the rescue. How many people with a handgun would be brave enough to challenge someone holding a AR15 or Bushmaster that holds 30 to 100 round clips and shoots some 80 rounds in less then a minute or so.
> ...


 If another 20 kids die, so be it. If the teacher wasn't armed, those kids would be dead anyways. :smack
Seems to me you live in a closet, too scared to come out because of the WHAT IF'S in this world. Please, for the love of your country if nothing else, get your head out of the sand and stop being afraid to do something because it MIGHT have an outcome you MIGHT, OR MIGHT NOT, like. Doing nothing simply because you are afraid to make a logical decision is worse then making a poor decision.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

jaredI said:


> If another 20 kids die, so be it. If the teacher wasn't armed, those kids would be dead anyways. :smack


What if instead of 20 kids dying in a mass shooting, 40 died in accidental gun mishaps? Would that just be the cost of doing business?


----------



## jaredI (Aug 6, 2011)

Nevada said:


> What if instead of 20 kids dying in a mass shooting, 40 died in accidental gun mishaps? Would that just be the cost of doing business?


 How would that be any different then the thousands that die in car accidents? or the 14 that die every week from drowning. Cost of doing business??? Don't quite get what you mean by that, but if 40 kids died in accidental gun mishaps, the 40 kids died in accidental gun mishaps. Not one bit different then 40 kids dying in any other accidental manner. LIFE happens. Gun control isn't about saving lives, its about people control. I REFUSE TO BE CONTROLLED in that manner.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

SageLady said:


> A ban on assault guns, and an armed security guard at the front and back door of every school would stop future school shootings.
> 
> We NEED to PROTECT our children. I'd be more then willing to pay more in taxes to do so...


A ban won't help at all
Armed guards and CIVILIANS will
"Assault guns" is just a BUZZWORD for the gullible


----------



## Oldcountryboy (Feb 23, 2008)

jaredI said:


> If another 20 kids die, so be it. If the teacher wasn't armed, those kids would be dead anyways. :smack
> Seems to me you live in a closet, too scared to come out because of the WHAT IF'S in this world. Please, for the love of your country if nothing else, get your head out of the sand and stop being afraid to do something because it MIGHT have an outcome you MIGHT, OR MIGHT NOT, like. Doing nothing simply because you are afraid to make a logical decision is worse then making a poor decision.


Banning military style weapons and high capacity clips is the logical decision. No doubt about it. If you ban these types of weapons criminals would not be able to create such high casulties in such a short time. Now that's logical. My head might be in the sand, but I believe yours might be in your :flameproofundies:


----------



## jaredI (Aug 6, 2011)

Oldcountryboy said:


> Banning military style weapons and high capacity clips is the logical decision. No doubt about it. If you ban these types of weapons criminals would not be able to create such high casulties in such a short time. Now that's logical. My head might be in the sand, but I believe yours might be in your :flameproofundies:


 We had a ban on assault style weapons, and large clips. 10 years worth, and the proof is in the pudding, it did nothing to stop acts of violence.:smack You obviously have internet, go look some facts up, it isn't hard.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> My concern is that if you introduce guns into schools that there will be more mishaps than saves. *If statistics for private gun use are any indication, it's not going to be successful.
> 
> *Even if just the administrator has a gun, there are about 130,000 schools in the country. *Introducing 130,000 guns into the public school system is going to come with its own set of problems*.


Statistics show both violent crime and accidental shootings are at lows not seen since the 60's, even though there are MILLIONS more guns in private hands now.
You say all these things without ever ONCE actually attempting to find the TRUTH.
Therefore, your *credibilty* is lacking. 
If you disagree, *SHOW *these statistics you're talking about

The only "problems" with guns in schools will be for KILLERS who try to go into a school. Again, you discard all logic for the fantasy



> *BO's children have guns?*



His whole family is* guarded 24/7 by men with machine guns*

If GUNS were the CAUSE of shootings, then by their (and your) "logic" they'd all be dead


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> How many people with a handgun would be brave enough to challenge someone holding a AR15 or Bushmaster that holds 30 to 100 round clips and shoots some 80 rounds in less then a minute or so.


It only takes ONE:
http://www.kgw.com/news/Clackamas-man-armed-confronts-mall-shooter-183593571.html


> A Clackamas man said he armed himself and confronted *mall shooter* Jacob Roberts


But you have to LET them


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Oldcountryboy said:


> Banning military style weapons and high capacity clips is the logical decision. No doubt about it. If you ban these types of weapons criminals would not be able to create such high casulties in such a short time. Now that's logical. My head might be in the sand, but I believe yours might be in your :flameproofundies:


There were *3 MILLION AR-15's* in private hands LAST WEEK.
Today, dealers are *selling them* as fast as they can write up the paperwork

One relatively SMALL gun shop near hear sold 40 "Assault rifles" BEFORE LUNCH today

And that is just ONE RIFLE model out of the one hundred + guns the ban will affect.

For every AR-15, there are probably 10 or more "AK-47's" ALREADY OUT THERE. 

If you think a "ban" will stop anything besides the RIGHT to own one, you really aren't thinking at all

Do you know the largest mass killings in US history *didn't involve guns* at all?


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

jaredI said:


> Don't quite get what you mean by that, but if 40 kids died in accidental gun mishaps, the 40 kids died in accidental gun mishaps. Not one bit different then 40 kids dying in any other accidental manner.


It's different because 40 kids dying in gun mishaps at school is preventable by not introducing guns into schools.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Nevada said:


> It's different because *40 kids dying in gun mishaps* at school is preventable by not introducing guns into schools.


You're simply unbelievable.

You *made up* a *fake number* based on a *false theory* and now you try to use it as a reason to continue just the way things are now?

You *see* what that got us

You have no concept of *reality*, and seemingly no interest* facing* it either.


----------



## Narshalla (Sep 11, 2008)

Nevada said:


> It's different because 40 kids dying in gun mishaps at school is preventable by not introducing guns into schools.


I'm not following you.

Guns are _already _being introduced to schools -- in the hands of people intent on committing mass murder, followed shortly by the cops who come in after and have to clean up the mess.

Sandy Point is an excellent example of this -- the wrong person brought a gun into the school, and 26 innocent people ended up dead.

The recent shooting in Clackmus, Oregon is a good example of what happens when a _good_ person has a gun, which can be found here.

To summarize the link, a shooter had already shot and killed tow people and was reloading when a man with a CCW permit pulled his firearm and pointed it at the shooter. He didn't fire because there were people behind the shooter; he couldn't be sure that he wouldn't hit one of them. The shooter _saw_ him and killed himself instead of continuing his rampage.

This shows that _one_ person, obeying the law, can save lives, while all the unarmed teachers in the school couldn't have stopped Adam Lanza.

One other thing to keep in mind, though -- as soon as an armed person showed up, Lanza killed himself, which means that in both cases, the mere _appearance _of resistance was enough to bring the shooter down.

Then there's the case of an off-duty police sargent in San Antonio who shot a man in the middle of a killing spree, which can be found here.

So, we know what happens when there are no armed good guys but there _are_ armed bad guys; we have plenty of real-life examples. We know what happens when there are armed good guys nearby when an armed bad guy starts shooting; we have real-life example of that, too.

Other than that, I'm not sure what you are trying to say.


----------



## CesumPec (May 20, 2011)

Hollowdweller said:


> I don't know. In rare instances it might help but in a number of mass shootings there have been people with guns and it either happened too fast or they held back because there was no safe way to return fire.


So your concern is that it would only help the situation but not be an absolute cure in all cases? Does that mean you agree to arm teachers but want to look for additional causes and preventative measures / solutions or you want to wait until you find the perfect solution and are willing to let more kids go unprotected until you have found perfection?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> Originally Posted by *Hollowdweller*
> _I don't know.* In rare instances it might help* but in a number of mass shootings there have been people with guns and it either happened too fast or they held back because there was no safe way to return fire._


In *EVERY* instance it would help
Lame excuses seem to be your only argument.

If you had any REAL facts, you'd have shown them by now
Armed security WORKS
It's a very simple concept

Ask BO's SS detail, with their* submachine guns *if "assault weapons" *save lives*


----------



## CesumPec (May 20, 2011)

Nevada said:


> The chances are hopelessly remote that they will introduce firearms into schools. Doing that carries inherent problems of its own.
> 
> I'll go on record right now as saying that it will never, EVER happen.


I like you Nevada, you always know just the most ignorant thing to say. Guns have been in schools for years. In my area, armed cops are in the schools everyday; they call them community resource officers for some strange reason. Some schools in Texas have had armed teachers for years. There are 14? or 16? universities in the US where any CCW holder can legally carry. I would guess you are ignorant of these guns in schools because of all the non news it has generated. The media doesn't report it when nothing bad happens. 

Would you care to rewrite your record?


----------



## CesumPec (May 20, 2011)

Oldcountryboy said:


> Now how do you know that a person with a CCW permit wont go looney for some reason and start another mass shooting while on school grounds? He maybe fine when he applied and took his trainning and testing. But a year later, or more, he suddenly goes off his rocker for some reason or another. Then steps foot on school grounds, a shopping mall, or a theater, and goes on a shooting rampage.
> 
> You don't know! Nobody knows! So why take a chance? Either stiffer gun control or anyone with a ccw permit should have a yearly sychiatric evaluation if they're going to be allowed to enter school grounds. Even then, your still taking a chance.


How do you know a crazed parent won't crash his car thru a crowded school parking lot and kill dozens? How do you know a cop won't go crazy and start a kid killing spree? How do you know a meteor won't crash into the school killing everyone? We don't know. 

I'm very pro gun everywhere but I grant you that sooner or later, a legal carrying individual will do something dumb and hurt or kill someone. bad things happen in this world. But that doesn't mean we should outlaw all cars because idiots drive and crash. 

CCW in schools might have helped in Newtown or Va Tech or Columbine or too many other places. The anti-gunners have so frequently said that CCW would result in everything from daily shootings in the streets and bars to random innocents being hit by vigilantes. But if it has happened, it has been very rare and much less harm done than by one Newtown shooter.


----------



## CesumPec (May 20, 2011)

Nevada said:


> Introducing firearms into elementary schools is a terrible idea.


Leaving kids defenseless and dead is a terrible idea. Since no law in the history of man has stopped violent crime, what is your alternative proposal to protect kids in schools? Should we put schools within walled forts with moats and armed guards in the towers so that guns are outside but not inside schools? Or just let more kids die because you are uncomfortable with guns in schools?


----------



## CesumPec (May 20, 2011)

SageLady said:


> A ban on assault guns, and an armed security guard at the front and back door of every school would stop future school shootings.
> 
> We NEED to PROTECT our children. I'd be more then willing to pay more in taxes to do so...


that would work just like the Maginot Line stopped Hitler from Invading France. The history of fixed defenses is replete with failure. When everyone knows where the defense is, it is easy to go around or surprise the defense. if i know the security guard is at the door, I can walk up with a pistol, take him out, and then move on to killing others. Your AWB will not stop school shootings. 

At my daughter's school, you'll need to build a fort around the school that covers dozens of acres. There are dozens of doors to protect and the school extends out to football and soccer fields, acres of parking lots, the recreation center and pool next door about 400 yards away, field trips on buses, and numerous other places. Are you going to cut down the forest behind her school to stop a sniper? 

how many guards are you going to hire? 20 guards in her school will not prevent a determined madman, just change the way the killing happens.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Nevada said:
> 
> 
> > It's different because *40 kids dying in gun mishaps* at school is preventable by not introducing guns into schools.
> ...


The reality is that it's probably a lot higher. While there is no data on gun accidents in schools, mainly because guns are not allowed in schools, I suspect that it will correlate closely to gun safety at home. The record is not good.

For every self defense or legally justifiable shooting, there are:


4 unintentional shootings
7 criminal assaults or homicides
11 attempted or completed suicides
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9715182

So for every good result, there are 22 bad results. You can't consider the benefits of introducing guns into schools without considering the dangers and pitfalls of introducing guns into schools. With 130,000 schools in this country, if guns are introduced into all of them there will be a significant number of mishaps.


----------



## beowoulf90 (Jan 13, 2004)

Oldcountryboy said:


> Banning military style weapons and high capacity clips is the logical decision. No doubt about it. If you ban these types of weapons criminals would not be able to create such high casulties in such a short time. Now that's logical. My head might be in the sand, but I believe yours might be in your :flameproofundies:


Boy are you dreaming.. Who allowed military style weapons to fall into the hands of criminals?

So now you have the Government saying we can't allow you, the private citizen, to have these weapons, but we will arm the criminals with them..

So the government is talking out both sides of their mouths.. 

You would deny my Right to own firearms, yet continue to back a Government that willingly sold the same firearms to criminals..

So tell me how an AR style rifle in semi auto is any different then an M! Garand?

I proved to my father years ago that his backing of the first AWB was wrong and he was being mislead.. Simply by placing 2 Ruger 10/22 on a table, one in an military style stock and in black and one in the standard wood stock.. Both have the same rate of fire and hold the same mags etc.. 

I even disassembled them and switched/swapped them out with each other to prove there was no difference between them, but one was considered an Assault weapon and one wasn't.. 

As far as the criminal having 30 rounds in his mag, I have 15 +1 in my Ruger P89 with another 15 in the spare mag.. Plus a BUG, so while the criminal may have more ammo, I have experience.. So while you would cower, I won't.. Yes I may be dead by the end of it, I at least will try to save lives...

Yet your solution is to prevent me from even having the same tools as the criminals.. Simply because you are afraid to act, so you want to keep anyone from acting...

I'm sorry I can't and won't sit back and willingly become a victim. I would rather die trying then to die cowering...


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

For every self defense or legally justifiable shooting, there are:





> 4 unintentional shootings
> 7 criminal assaults or homicides
> 11 attempted or completed suicides
> http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9715182
> ...



Wrong yet again
Those figures don't count the times an ARMED CITIZEN uses a firearm to STOP a crime when NO SHOTS ARE FIRED, which is about 80% of the time.

You're still grasping at straws and dealing with "MAYBES"
You're also using data from an article published in *1998 that used data from 1993* when reality is crime and accidental shooting are much lower *NOW*

Their "conclusion" was carefully fit into very *narrow paramters*:



> Guns kept in homes are more likely to be involved in a fatal or nonfatal accidental shooting, criminal assault, or suicide attempt *than to be used to injure or kill in self-defense.*


You also FAILED miserably in your research, because you did look to see *WHO* did the study:

*



Injuries and deaths due to firearms in the home.

Click to expand...

*


> Kellermann AL, Somes G, Rivara FP, Lee RK, Banton JG.


*



For roughly four years Kellermann refused to honor requests from legitimate scholars to examine his data, prompting law professor Daniel Polsby to comment that it was seriously debatable whether "the Kellermann results should be credited at all, because the data on which their work rests was neither deposited with the New England Journal nor otherwise made available to independent researchers" (Firearms Costs, Firearms Benefits and the Limits of Knowledge, p. 210).

Click to expand...





Kellermann finally, purportedly, released some of his data in the form of the aforementioned ICPSR dataset as Kleck comments (personal correspondence with GunCite, Jan. 1999): 

First, there is no way to tell if all of Kellermann's data are in this archived version of the dataset. Most conspicuously, there is not a scrap of evidence in this dataset indicating whether the guns used to kill homicide victims were guns kept in the victim's home, even though K's whole point was that keeping a gun in one's home raises one's risk of becoming a homicide victim. 

Second, I would have been able to determine whether all of the pieces of information gathered by K. and his team were included in the ICPSR version of the dataset if I could have examined the questionaires used to interview victims and matched controls, and the coding forms used to record information from official files.

When I requested, in writing, that K. send me these materials, he did not reply. Speculation: K. did in fact have his staff code information as to whether the murder weapon was kept in the victim's home, and found virtually no evidence of homicides involving such guns. I can think of no legitimate reason why K. would not provide his interview and coding forms, and so suspect that his archived dataset does not completely reflect all of the information he gathered or tried to gather."

Click to expand...

*http://guncite.com/gun-control-kellermann-3times.html

So far your* best* arguments have been your made up *fantasy stats*, and *junk science*


----------



## jaredI (Aug 6, 2011)

Nevada said:


> The reality is that it's probably a lot higher. While there is no data on gun accidents in schools, mainly because guns are not allowed in schools, I suspect that it will correlate closely to gun safety at home. The record is not good.
> 
> For every self defense or legally justifiable shooting, there are:
> 
> ...


 Terrible article. I'd call this junk science. Go look at some real statistics from the DoJ or FBI.

For over twenty years it has been illegal for teens to buy guns and, despite such gun control, the African American teenage male homicide rate in Washington, DC is 227 per 100,000 - 20 times the US average! [5] The US group for whom legal gun ownership has the highest prevalence, middle-aged white men, has a homicide rate of less than 7 per 100,000 - about half of the US average. [6]

If the "guns-cause-violence theory is correct why does Virginia, the alleged "easy purchase source of all those illegal Washington, DC guns, have a murder rate of 9.3 per 100,000, one- ninth of DC's overall homicide rate of 80.6? [7 ]Why are homicide rates lowest in states with loose gun control (North Dakota 1.1, Maine 1.2, South Dakota 1.7, Idaho 1.8, Iowa 2.0, Montana 2.6) and highest in states and the district with draconian gun controls and bans (District of Columbia 80.6, New York 14.2, California 12.7, Illinois 11.3, Maryland 11.7)? 
I'd also like to point out that about 2/3s of all gun related homicides are drug traffickers or their customers. This makes even the worse stats look much better.
US Bureau of Justice Statistics show that guns are the safest and most effective means of defense. Using a gun for protection results in fewer injuries to the defender than using any other means of defense and is safer than not resisting at all. The myth that "guns are only used for killing and the myth that "guns are dangerous when used for protection melt when exposed to scientific examination and data. The myths persist because they are repeated so frequently and dogmatically that few think to question the myths by examining the mountains of data available. 

CREDIBLE FACTS ARE OUT THERE, *if you choose to know the truth*. Otherwise, run around blind and pretend whatever you like, just don't try to force it down my throat. I can't stomach anymore of this socialist BS.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

jaredI said:


> Terrible article. I'd call this junk science. Go look at some real statistics from the DoJ or FBI.
> 
> For over twenty years it has been illegal for teens to buy guns and, despite such gun control, the African American teenage male homicide rate in Washington, DC is 227 per 100,000 - 20 times the US average! [5] The US group for whom legal gun ownership has the highest prevalence, middle-aged white men, has a homicide rate of less than 7 per 100,000 - about half of the US average. [6]
> 
> ...


Nothing in your post challenges the data at the link I provided.


----------



## CesumPec (May 20, 2011)

Nevada said:


> The reality is that it's probably a lot higher. While there is no data on gun accidents in schools, mainly because guns are not allowed in schools, I suspect that it will correlate closely to gun safety at home. The record is not good.


Why do you suspect home kept guns would have the same record as in schools? At home, rifles are kept in racks, pistols are kept in nightstands, some guns are kept by thugs, some by responsible citizens. A more valid comparison is to compare CCW guns while carrying in movie theatres, restaurants, libraries, etc. The record of safe handling by CCW users is remarkable in that there is very little in the way of accidents or misuse. 

The record is that CCW holders use handguns more responsibly than police use theirs. CCW holders fire fewer shots, hit the target more often, and hit fewer innocents than police. Fewer CCW holders commit felonies than cops. So if you favor police in schools to keep the kids safe, then the sort of stats you want to consider argue in favor of some CCW armed teachers.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> Nothing in your post challenges the data at the link I provided.


*Everything* I posted challenges the Kellerman study, plus the fact it's *almost 20 years old *makes it pointless to begin with.

Kellerman was too embarrassed to even show all his data
He had already published one *bogus* study with similar "findings"

http://home.comcast.net/~dsmjd/tux/dsmjd/rkba/kellerman.htm


> Kellerman *used many statistical tricks* such as limiting any defensive gun use to that where the trigger was actually pulled and excluding any gun use which ocurreding any gun use which ocurred outside the home (such as the front yard).
> 
> Using multiple categories and then condensingg the data from there tended to obscure the more obvious factors such as, most suicides in his study did not use a gun.
> 
> ...


But why bother with 20+ year old studies when we are discussing NOW?
There is much more recent data to be had:







​


> The National Center for Health Statistics recently released data that shows in 2008, the number of per capita rate of *accidental gun deaths fell to an all-time low*.





> Researchers also framed the data in terms of probability. For Example, in 2008, &#8220;the chance of a child dying in a firearm accident was roughly *one in a million*.





> When compared to all types of accidental deaths, guns came in well below other categories including motor vehicle accidents, falls, fires, poisonings, and other types of mishaps. As a percentage of all accidental deaths, *guns accounted for 0.5%.*












http://die-less.com/2012/01/03/acci...firearm-related-homicides-at-an-all-time-low/


----------



## jaredI (Aug 6, 2011)

Nevada said:


> Nothing in your post challenges the data at the link I provided.


Everything in my post challenges you phony data. I'm simply to lazy to give you the link to the FBI, DoJ, CDC and other credible sites. I'm not going to do all the leg work again, just to provide it to someone who chooses to wear rose colored glasses and ignore reality. I told you the sites to check, now it's up to you.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> I told you the sites to check, now it's up to you.


He's *already seen* links that prove his outdated claims are not valid.


----------



## jaredI (Aug 6, 2011)

Bearfootfarm said:


> He's *already seen* links that prove his outdated claims are not valid.


 I know. I get better reasonable discussions with my 12 year old children.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

jaredI said:


> I know. I get better reasonable discussions with my 12 year old children.


LOL!!
:bow: :bow: :bow:


----------



## Oldcountryboy (Feb 23, 2008)

CesumPec said:


> that would work just like the Maginot Line stopped Hitler from Invading France. The history of fixed defenses is replete with failure. When everyone knows where the defense is, it is easy to go around or surprise the defense. if i know the security guard is at the door, I can walk up with a pistol, take him out, and then move on to killing others. Your AWB will not stop school shootings.
> 
> At my daughter's school, you'll need to build a fort around the school that covers dozens of acres. There are dozens of doors to protect and the school extends out to football and soccer fields, acres of parking lots, the recreation center and pool next door about 400 yards away, field trips on buses, and numerous other places. Are you going to cut down the forest behind her school to stop a sniper?
> 
> how many guards are you going to hire? 20 guards in her school will not prevent a determined madman, just change the way the killing happens.


Yep, and what happens if 2 or more students plan everything out and all come in with AR's and AK's. If I remember right, there was 2 shooters in the Columbine school masacre and they had been planning it for weeks. That could very well happen again and probably will so long as there's assult rifles out there. 



beowoulf90 said:


> Yet your solution is to prevent me from even having the same tools as the criminals.. Simply because you are afraid to act, so you want to keep anyone from acting...
> 
> I'm sorry I can't and won't sit back and willingly become a victim. I would rather die trying then to die cowering...


Well guess what? If they legalize Bazooka's so you can defend yourself, guess what will end up in the criminals hands to use against you? BAZOOKA'S!!!!!

More firepower isn't the answer! It will only be used against you! 



jaredI said:


> I know. I get better reasonable discussions with my 12 year old children.


You mean they would stoop down to your level????


----------



## Narshalla (Sep 11, 2008)

Oldcountryboy said:


> Yep, and what happens if 2 or more students plan everything out and all come in with AR's and AK's. If I remember right, there was 2 shooters in the Columbine school massacre and they had been planning it for weeks. That could very well happen again and probably will so long as there's assault rifles out there.
> 
> Well guess what? If they legalize Bazooka's so you can defend yourself, guess what will end up in the criminals hands to use against you? BAZOOKA'S!!!!!
> 
> ...


Every argument you've presented that you think is for stricter gun lwas is actually against them.

The first thing you need to do is ask yourself why it is, exactly, that we never hear about a shooter trying anything in a police station or a fire station.

Why? Because there are guaranteed to be a lot of guns there, thus guaranteeing that they will fail.

Why don't we see more shooting at ranges? Again, armed people will be there, no doubt, so they shooter will fail, no question.

Why are there shootings at schools and theaters and shopping malls? Because law-abiding people don't bring firearms there, generally speaking, so the shooter knows that he will be the only one with a gun. It's a target-rich environment; he can be sure of success.

Your entire argument cfalls apart, much like a shooter's plans when they encounter any resistance, because there are many more people who are willing and able to be the sheep dogs than there are people who are intent on being wolves. You, however, only see the teeth, and never bother to see what actually happens when a sheep dog is there to protect the people.


----------



## CesumPec (May 20, 2011)

Narshalla said:


> The first thing you need to do is ask yourself why it is, exactly, that we never hear about a shooter trying anything in a police station or a fire station.


While I agree with your post's intent, occasionally there is an attack on a police station. The same high school that my daughter attends produced the Va Tech shooter also produced the much lesser known Sully Station shooter. A very disturbed 19ish year old stole his parents guns and drove to the parking lot of the local cop house.

The shooter got out and killed two cops in the parking lot before getting killed by a brave cop, whom I've had the pleasure of meeting. It was a case of suicide by cop. 

I don't view this as an argument against guns, but another case that shows the need for more proactive mental health care.


----------



## Narshalla (Sep 11, 2008)

CesumPec said:


> While I agree with your post's intent, occasionally there is an attack on a police station. The same high school that my daughter attends produced the Va Tech shooter also produced the much lesser known Sully Station shooter. A very disturbed 19ish year old stole his parents guns and drove to the parking lot of the local cop house.
> 
> The shooter got out and killed two cops in the parking lot before getting killed by a brave cop, whom I've had the pleasure of meeting. It was a case of suicide by cop.
> 
> I don't view this as an argument against guns, but another case that shows the need for more proactive mental health care.


I agree with you completely about the mental health care.

Still, please note that 26 were killed in Connecticut, while only two were killed in Oregon recently, and two in San Antonio.

The difference between Sandy Point and the other two was that it wasn't only the shooter that was armed in the other places.


----------



## CesumPec (May 20, 2011)

Oldcountryboy said:


> Yep, and what happens if 2 or more students plan everything out and all come in with AR's and AK's. If I remember right, there was 2 shooters in the Columbine school masacre and they had been planning it for weeks. That could very well happen again and probably will so long as there's assult rifles out there.


And absent assault rifles, no one would try it with semi auto handguns? You really think a severely mentally ill person who is willing to kill defenseless children is going to stop himself because of AWB? Tim McVeigh...give this a little thought instead of just emotional reaction.


----------



## beowoulf90 (Jan 13, 2004)

Oldcountryboy said:


> Yep, and what happens if 2 or more students plan everything out and all come in with AR's and AK's. If I remember right, there was 2 shooters in the Columbine school masacre and they had been planning it for weeks. That could very well happen again and probably will so long as there's assult rifles out there.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Always more "What if's"

What if you walked into a school and used foul language? Could I then ban Freedom of Speech?

Using your lack of logic, I could, because it would "protect the children"


So are you going to ban my knowledge and skill also?

You see I do know gunsmithing and even had my FFL back in the 80's..

You want to make me a criminal for exercising my Rights.. So why not make my own weapons?

I could be rich selling to others (read as criminals) underground..

So tell me how will you defend yourself or protect your family?

Cower in a closet? Hide in the basement? 

Because you will be seriously out gunned and unarmed..

Don't even think about putting booby traps at your doors or windows, that is already illegal. You aren't allowed to harm the criminals...

If you ban guns only criminals will have guns...

So tell me why there are more violent crimes in Countries that have already banned firearms?

It didn't work for their Socialist Countries, what makes you think it will work here? Or is this just another step towards your socialist/fascist agenda?

If you don't like the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, please feel free to go somehwere else and try to encroach on their Rights..You may be happier, I know I will be. It gets tiring having to defend our Rights to thugs who would infringe on them...


----------



## jaredI (Aug 6, 2011)

So you think a government isn't capable of becoming tyrannical, rounding up those that oppose it and exterminating them, can't happen, then you are a complete moron, and seriously lack any comprehension of history and some current events.
* If *you get your way and later the government comes after you or yours, don't come crying to me. At that time I wouldn't waste a bullet to grant you another ounce of the freedoms you so eagerly and readily trample.
YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED by our forefathers, and many more since, yet fail to comprehend the dangers of tossing your *rights* and *duties* as a UNITED STATES CITIZEN aside as outdated trash. You even go as far as attempting to dictate to others that they should lay down and surrender their CONSTITUTIONAL rights.

I would also add:

If you support gun control in any way, you share company with the likes of 
ADOLF HITLER
JOSEPH STALIN
BENITO MUSSOLINI
MAO TZE TUNG 
POL POT 
FIDEL CASTRO
HUGO CHAVEZ
KARL MARX
These dictators murdered Millions upon Millions of their own people.
Meanwhile 
âGuard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruinedâ¦The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun.â
- Patrick Henry
âNo free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in governmentâ
â Thomas Jefferson, 1 Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334
âA free people ought to be armed.â
â George Washington
âTo disarm the people is the most effectual way to enslave them.â
â George Mason, 3 Elliot, Debates at 380
âTo preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them.â
- Richard Henry Lee
âThe supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops.â 
- Noah Webster, 1787

If you can argue with those patriots, you truly are delusional at best, and outright stupid at worst. 
I choose to GUARD PUBLIC LIBERTY because I AM AN AMERICAN. In my opinion, if you choose anything less, you are no better then those dictators who murdered their own people.


----------



## 4nTN (Jan 28, 2005)

why do some of you advocate arming teachers.Most of the Teachers I know would not even want to be armed and responsible for having a shootout protecting our children.What if they missed,and shot a student?

Why can`t we station our police or veterans,national guardsman in schools? They are already trained?

I don`t know why this is even an issue.Those are he ONLY logical people I`d want protecting our school children.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

4nTN said:


> why do some of you advocate arming teachers.Most of the Teachers I know would not even want to be armed and responsible for having a shootout protecting our children.What if they missed,and shot a student?
> 
> Why can`t we station our police or veterans,national guardsman in schools? They are already trained?
> 
> I don`t know why this is even an issue.Those are he ONLY logical people I`d want protecting our school children.


Some of those you mentioned ARE teachers! Why aren't they allwoed to carry a weapon? Ask the liberals who control our schools.(hint- their affraid of people who don't bow to the government)


----------



## CesumPec (May 20, 2011)

4nTN said:


> why do some of you advocate arming teachers.Most of the Teachers I know would not even want to be armed and responsible for having a shootout protecting our children.What if they missed,and shot a student?
> 
> Why can`t we station our police or veterans,national guardsman in schools? They are already trained?
> 
> I don`t know why this is even an issue.Those are he ONLY logical people I`d want protecting our school children.


I don't think anyone is advocating arming ALL teachers. If you ALLOW teachers to be armed, about 1 or 2% of them will get the training and CCW, if CCW stats in the general population are an indicator. 

As to your belief that police and retired military are so much better, why? I took a 4 day beginners handgun class, 40 hours of instruction, and the LA SWAT team members in attendance said we had more handgun training than the avg cop. There were US Marines there another time I retook the class to improve my skills. They admitted to taking the class because it was better training than the military gives in HANDGUNS to the avg soldier. 

Some of the people taking that class were seniors, tiny females, fat out of shape dudes, and one guy who is my lifelong best bud, who is a retired Green Beret. I can out shoot him any day of the week. He had 27 years in the Army, I had no experience prior to this 4 day class. I enjoyed it so much I got him to go back with me a year later when I repeated the class. He works full time at a shooting range, teaches cops and citizens how to shoot, is certified by NRA as an instructor, and I can out shoot him, faster and more accurate. That is with a concealed handgun. He is better with a sniper rifle but sniper rifles don't come into play much in self defense. He also can shoot all day long but my injuries and arthritis stop me after a while. 

There is no magic to being well trained with a handgun. It takes time and practice, just like anything else. 

as to worrying about misses, evidence has shown that CCW holders shoot fewer rounds, hit the bad guys more often, and hit innocents FAR less often than the avg cop. Even the least trained CCW holders are trained to hit the target, not lay down suppressive fire as cops and military are trained.


----------



## jaredI (Aug 6, 2011)

4nTN said:


> why do some of you advocate arming teachers.Most of the Teachers I know would not even want to be armed and responsible for having a shootout protecting our children.What if they missed,and shot a student?
> 
> Why can`t we station our police or veterans,national guardsman in schools? They are already trained?
> 
> I don`t know why this is even an issue.Those are he ONLY logical people I`d want protecting our school children.


 The ones who don't want to be armed don't have to be. Those that take the protection of our kids seriously should be allowed to carry if they choose. What if they missed and killed a kid? BIG HAIRY DEAL, so they accidentally shot a kid and in the process potentially saved the lives of countless others.
Station police? Why? LEO's go through training, just allow those teachers to go through a similar training course and it's a done deal. They should then be trusted as much as any law officer.


----------



## simi-steading (Sep 27, 2012)

Columbine is a poor argument for banning "assault' guns...

They had sawed off shotguns... yes, they broke the law sawing them off.. 

One of them had a 9mm carbine, and had 10 round magazines for it... Something that probably won't be covered by a new ban, unless they outlaw ALL semi autos... 

Yes, a tech 9 was used, with a lot of high cap mags.. but only 55 shots were fired from that gun... 

A huge number of explosive devices were made from propane tanks... I sure didn't see us rushing out to ban BBQ grills and tanks... 

Once again... Laws didn't stop a tragedy.


----------



## Narshalla (Sep 11, 2008)

4nTN said:


> why do some of you advocate arming teachers.Most of the Teachers I know would not even want to be armed and responsible for having a shootout protecting our children.What if they missed,and shot a student?
> 
> Why can`t we station our police or veterans,national guardsman in schools? They are already trained?
> 
> I don`t know why this is even an issue.Those are he ONLY logical people I`d want protecting our school children.


Look back at that recent shooting in the mall in Clackmas, Oregon. _One person_ with a CCW was armed, that we know of. Just _one._

But the gunman was expecting no resistance at all, and as soon as he was confronted with someone who could shoot back, he turned his gun on himself. He had more guns, and he had more ammunition; all he had to do was reload or discard the gun he had in his hand and grab another one. But he didn't -- at the slightest resistance, he gave up and killed himself.

You know what? If he had thought for one moment that he would encounter that resistance, he would have gone elsewhere.

And _that's _why Adam Lanza chose to go to a school -- because he _knew_ there would be no resistance.

But what if he _couldn't have _known if there was going to be resistance or not? What if teachers were allowed, if they so chose, to conceal carry on school grounds? Do you think he would still have gone there?

Probably not.

The problem is, you have fear. You are _filled_ with fear. And in your fear, you try to reduce everyone to your level, to make sure that everyone is filled with the same helplessness that you are in hopes that it will, somehow, some way, keep you safe.

It won't, and you know it, but instead of admitting that and taking steps to make sure you are safe yourself, you keep trying and trying and trying to make everyone else helpless, and it never works.

Quit trying to punish the rest of us because you are afraid and can't tell the different between a law-abiding person with a gun and a law-breaker with a gun. It's not our fault that you can't see any difference between the sheepdogs and the wolves, it's not our fault that you are filled with fear, and it's not our fault that you are not willing to do anything to protect yourself, your family, or anyone else.

Look back to the underlined part, and think about this: The good guy in the mall in Oregon didn't fire a shot. Not. One. Shot.

He didn't fire because he knew that there were people behind the shooter, so it just wasn't safe.

But the mere _presence _of someone who was ready, willing, and _able _to stand up to him was enough to end the shooting spree. One person -- just one -- saved countless lives.

The schoolchildren in Conn. had someone who was ready and willing to protect them -- the teacher who used her body to shield them. But they didn't have someone _able _to defend them -- and they're dead as a result.

And you want to do the same thing to the rest of us -- make us all as helpless as the children were, and as you feel. That's all anyone has ever achieved with "gun control", and that's all anyone will ever achieve.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Narshalla said:


> And _that's _why Adam Lanza chose to go to a school -- because he _knew_ there would be no resistance.


We don't know why he went to the school.


----------



## Narshalla (Sep 11, 2008)

Nevada said:


> We don't know why he went to the school.


Not _that_ school, no -- after all, he had no connection to it at all, no relative worked there, he'd never gone there himself, nor had any relatives that we know of.

But we do know why he chose _a_ school.


----------



## pancho (Oct 23, 2006)

All we know is he passed up other places to stop on his way to the school.
Why didn't he not go next door to kill people?
If you just want to kill people you will kill the next person you see. 
If you pass up that next person you see it may be because you know they could have a gun. They could possible stop your killing right there.
If you want to kill as many people as possible you will choose a place where there isn't any guns. Where there isn't any chance of anyone shooting back.
What better place than a gun free area?


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Narshalla said:


> But we do know why he chose _a_ school.


I don't presume to know anything about his motive.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

pancho said:


> All we know is he passed up other places to stop on his way to the school.
> Why didn't he not go next door to kill people?
> If you just want to kill people you will kill the next person you see.
> If you pass up that next person you see it may be because you know they could have a gun. They could possible stop your killing right there.
> ...


You assume that a mentally disturbed man made rational decisions to plan his act. It's entirely possible that his plan was based on irrational decisions.


----------



## Narshalla (Sep 11, 2008)

Nevada said:


> I don't presume to know anything about his motive.


If you do not know anything about his motive, then how can you say that gun control will make sure that something like this doesn't happen again?


----------



## 4nTN (Jan 28, 2005)

okay first of all you can`t try and figure what is going to deter a NUT.


BUT,If I was a nut I`d be way more deterred by an armed Police officer or a uniformed official of any sort.


I`m not against a Teacher (or anyone else for that matter) owning a gun for their own personal protection but I don`t feel comfortable having a teacher being used as my child's personal body guard.

I want my child`s teachers to concentrate on educating my child.And while I know they are MORE than just educators I don`t think we should lump more on them or make them FEEL protecting our kids from something like this is part of the job description.


----------



## unregistered41671 (Dec 29, 2009)

He chose the school because he knew he could carry out his EVIL plan with uninterrupted ease on defenseless children. That is what these psyco's do. They look for easy targets that can not defend themselves.


----------



## jaredI (Aug 6, 2011)

4nTN said:


> okay first of all you can`t try and figure what is going to deter a NUT.
> 
> 
> BUT,If I was a nut I`d be way more deterred by an armed Police officer or a uniformed official of any sort.
> ...


 RIGHT ON:bash:!!! It is so much better for the teacher to watch helplessly as their class is slaughtered before their very eyes, while they wait for police to respond. :doh: Lets see how that impacts their future students, or career.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

4nTN said:


> why do some of you advocate arming teachers.Most of the Teachers I know would not even want to be armed and responsible for having a shootout protecting our children.What if they missed,and shot a student?
> 
> Why can`t we station our police or veterans,national guardsman in schools? They are already trained?
> 
> I don`t know why this is even an issue.Those are he ONLY logical people I`d want protecting our school children.


Many teachers WANT to be armed, and already have a CCW license
No one would FORCE a teacher to carry if they didn't WANT to.



> *What if* they missed,and shot a student?


*What if* the principle at Sandy Hook *had a gun* when she met him AT THE DOOR?


----------



## Narshalla (Sep 11, 2008)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Many teachers WANT to be armed, and already have a CCW license
> No one would FORCE a teacher to carry if they didn't WANT to.
> 
> 
> ...


That's what I was going to say!


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Narshalla said:


> If you do not know anything about his motive, then how can you say that gun control will make sure that something like this doesn't happen again?


Did I say that?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Nevada said:


> You assume that a mentally disturbed man made rational decisions to plan his act.
> It's entirely possible that his plan was based on irrational decisions.


None of that matters.
What *matters* is he COULD have been* stopped* by meeting FORCE *WITH FORCE*

We have *armed* guards at BANKS
BO has *armed* guards 24/7
Bo's children have* armed* guards 24/7

*Why are HIS children* *more important*?


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Bearfootfarm said:


> BO has *armed* guards 24/7
> Bo's children have* armed* guards 24/7
> 
> *Why are HIS children* *more important*?


The safety of the president's family is a critical national security issue. If a family member were to be taken hostage then the president couldn't act objectively on demands, which could include compromising national interests.

You needed to watch West Wing when it was on.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

Nevada said:


> The safety of the president's family is a critical national security issue. If a family member were to be taken hostage then the president couldn't act objectively on demands, which could include compromising national interests.
> 
> You needed to watch West Wing when it was on.


What about senators, their disposable, yet Fienstien used to have a ccw permit. Now she has armed bodyguards. Is she more important than any other citizen? No, is the correct answer. She feels she's better than anyone else.(except Obama)


----------



## pancho (Oct 23, 2006)

Nevada said:


> You assume that a mentally disturbed man made rational decisions to plan his act. It's entirely possible that his plan was based on irrational decisions.


I don't know that he was mentally disturbed.
Even a mentally disturbed man does not have to be stupid.


----------



## pancho (Oct 23, 2006)

Nevada said:


> The safety of the president's family is a critical national security issue. If a family member were to be taken hostage then the president couldn't act objectively on demands, which could include compromising national interests.
> 
> You needed to watch West Wing when it was on.


Come on Nevada, not those movies and TV shows again.
Do I have to remind you again that it is acting?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Narshalla said:


> That's what I was going to say!


Sorry.
I'll let you have the next one


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> Originally Posted by *Nevada*
> _The safety of the president's family is a critical *national security issue*. If a family member were to be taken hostage then the president couldn't act objectively on demands, which could include compromising national interests._


More BS
HIS children are *no more important* than anyone else's, and 
PROTECTING THE CONSTITUTION is a *bigger *"National Security interest" 



> You needed to watch *West Wing* when it was on





> the *president* couldn't *act objectively* on demands


You need to stick to the REAL WORLD, since both of the above are FANTASIES


----------



## CesumPec (May 20, 2011)

4nTN said:


> okay first of all you can`t try and figure what is going to deter a NUT.
> 
> 
> BUT,If I was a nut I`d be way more deterred by an armed Police officer or a uniformed official of any sort.
> ...


So if teachers wore uniforms, and had either been cops or soldiers prior to becoming a teacher, you would be OK with a teacher carrying in class?


----------



## Narshalla (Sep 11, 2008)

Nevada said:


> The safety of the president's family is a critical national security issue. If a family member were to be taken hostage then the president couldn't act objectively on demands, which could include compromising national interests.
> 
> You needed to watch West Wing when it was on.


Lol what?

You do know that if the POTUS is in a situation where he cannot make decisions (like general sedation for a colonoscopy), there are procedures in place for passin command on to the VPOTUS. I remember this happened back while Bush43 was in, on a slow news day, so it got reported.

If the POTUS is emotionally compromised, (his kids being taken hostage, for instance) OTOH . . . exactly the same thing would happen. He'd sign over command, temporarily, and have the VPOTUS handle things.

I never watched West Wing, not that it matters, because this is what would happen _in real life_, as opposed to whatever happened on the show.

You know another good example of real life? That shooting in Oregon.

A CCW holder was there, armed, with friends. When the shooting started, he got himself and his friends to cover and drew his firearm. He waited until the shooter had to reload (smart, no question,) and the looked to see if he could get a good shot. He couldn't -- there were people on the other side of the shooter -- so he held his fire, and the shooter killed himself before the CCW holder could get a shot off safely.

_That's_ reality. He had the willingness to save lives, but the wisdom to know that he was saving lives, not "being a hero." No epic gun battle, no . . . Hollywood BS, just a man _willing_ to help.

And you know what? People who think are reasonably sure that even if he didn't fire a shot, _he_ is the reason the shooter only killed two people. The killer had the guns, he had the ammo, he clearly had the murderous intent . . . and he gave up and killed himself rather than being caught.

That's real life, not a Hollywood script that doesn't even know that the laws of physics exist, not a script written specifically to create drama, not a script where someone makes stupid decisions specifically so that the writers can have a plot point to advance the storyline.

Have you ever watched the movie _Air Force One_? I think you have, and that you have _no _idea what the hell you are talking about when it comes to situations where the POTUS has compromised judgement.


----------



## Oldcountryboy (Feb 23, 2008)

Narshalla said:


> If you do not know anything about his motive, then how can you say that gun control will make sure that something like this doesn't happen again?


It will not make it not happen again. But if we limit the number of ammo a gun can hold/shoot in such a short time, then that will give people a better chance of escaping the shooter. We're not trying to take guns out of the picture. 



Bearfootfarm said:


> *What if* the principle at Sandy Hook *had a gun* when she met him AT THE DOOR?


What it that principle doesnt believe in carrying a weapon for fear of it ending up in the wrong hands or some other reason? Would she be fired? 



Bearfootfarm said:


> None of that matters.
> What *matters* is he COULD have been* stopped* by meeting FORCE *WITH FORCE*
> 
> We have *armed* guards at BANKS
> ...


His children aren't more important and that isn't the reason why they are guarded by armed guards and you probably know it. The reason is cause BO is the president, his children make better target for kidnapping. Yours and my children wouldnt carry much of a price as the presidents children would. Therefore our children would highly unlikely be kidnapped for ransom.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Narshalla said:


> Lol what?
> 
> You do know that if the POTUS is in a situation where he cannot make decisions (like general sedation for a colonoscopy), there are procedures in place for passin command on to the VPOTUS. I remember this happened back while Bush43 was in, on a slow news day, so it got reported.
> 
> If the POTUS is emotionally compromised, (his kids being taken hostage, for instance) OTOH . . . exactly the same thing would happen. He'd sign over command, temporarily, and have the VPOTUS handle things.


In the West Wing the VP had resigned due to an affair, so the Speaker of the House took over.

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lCaWDyDCrpk[/ame]

But my point was that the security of the president's family is a critical matter of national security.

You need to work on being a little less abrasive.


----------



## CesumPec (May 20, 2011)

Oldcountryboy said:


> It will not make it not happen again. But if we limit the number of ammo a gun can hold/shoot in such a short time, then that will give people a better chance of escaping the shooter. We're not trying to take guns out of the picture.
> 
> What it that principle doesnt believe in carrying a weapon for fear of it ending up in the wrong hands or some other reason? Would she be fired?


If we have some well trained, well armed teachers, that would also give people a better chance of escaping the shooter and not infringe on my chances of defending my family. 

If the principal doesn't want to be armed, fine. Maybe someone else in that school will choose to take responsibility. Maybe enough teachers in enough schools will be armed that schools are no longer seen as easy targets.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> What it that principle doesnt believe in carrying a weapon for fear of it ending up in the wrong hands or some other reason? Would she be fired?


Seriously, that's the BEST answer you could come up with to the question I asked?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> *His children aren't more important* and that isn't the reason why they are guarded by armed guards and you probably know it. The reason is cause BO is the president, *his children make better target* for kidnapping. Yours and my children wouldnt carry much of a price as the presidents children would. Therefore our children would highly unlikely be kidnapped for ransom.


Evidently you're wrong on both points, since HIS are protected *with GUNS*, but the UNARMED school was attacked.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> But my point was that the security of the president's family is a critical matter of national security.
> You need to work on being a little less abrasive.


His family is *NOT* more important than *anyone* else.
If they deserve *ARMED *guards, so do all the rest.

About 1/3 of schools in the country DO have armed protection, so there's no reason why the rest can't have it WITHOUT *any* gun bans


----------



## Narshalla (Sep 11, 2008)

Nevada said:


> In the West Wing the VP had resigned due to an affair, so the Speaker of the House took over.
> 
> But my point was that the security of the president's family is a critical matter of national security.
> 
> You need to work on being a little less abrasive.


Like I said, not reality. The SOTH would only take over if the POTUS was already incapacitated; if there was nothing wrong with POTUS, then he would nominate a replacement, it would be voted on, yada yada yada.

As for being less abrasive . . . You need to work on having better sources.

You are quoting _Hollywood_, for crying out loud, as though Hollywood has anything more than an accidental resemblance to reality.

I mean, you aren't even quoting the History Channel or Biography Channel, which don't always get things right, but at least they sometimes _try_. You might as well quote Kitty Kelly or that stalker who wrote that book about Sarah Palin!

But back to the underlined part. Up to a point, I agree with you, but I must ask you to tell us all how important, exactly, is the safety and security of children who don't have a parent elected to high public office?


----------



## 4nTN (Jan 28, 2005)

CesumPec said:


> So if teachers wore uniforms, and had either been cops or soldiers prior to becoming a teacher, you would be OK with a teacher carrying in class?



I`m okay with it yes,I just don`t think it will deter anyone.I`d rather try and STOP it at the door.

I have three teachers in my family and I think they spent four years at college to learn to teach.I`m pretty sure they would like to be protected so they can do their jobs 

I think a Soldier wearing a uniform or a uniformed police officer would be WAY more imposing to someone set out to harm innocent people.


----------



## Gary in ohio (May 11, 2002)

Seems to me protecting our children would be a good job for all of those unemployed returning veterans. They are already trained in handling a firearm and they need a job.


----------



## CesumPec (May 20, 2011)

4nTN said:


> I`m okay with it yes,I just don`t think it will deter anyone.I`d rather try and STOP it at the door.
> 
> I have three teachers in my family and I think they spent four years at college to learn to teach.I`m pretty sure they would like to be protected so they can do their jobs
> 
> I think a Soldier wearing a uniform or a uniformed police officer would be WAY more imposing to someone set out to harm innocent people.


OK, i have you on record as it being OK to have armed teachers. 

I agree with you that an armed, uniformed cop is more imposing, it's just that gets us back to having them at every door. And at schools in the South, outdoor hallways and spread out campuses are common. So lots of entrances and buildings to protect. But even if you get an armed guard at every door, aren't the kids still better protected with a well trained, armed teacher?


----------



## 4nTN (Jan 28, 2005)

Gary in ohio said:


> Seems to me protecting our children would be a good job for all of those unemployed returning veterans. They are already trained in handling a firearm and they need a job.





Thanks,I agree 100%!



some common sense is what this world is lacking.


----------



## jaredI (Aug 6, 2011)

Gary in ohio said:


> Seems to me protecting our children would be a good job for all of those unemployed returning veterans. They are already trained in handling a firearm and they need a job.


 To play the devil's advocate here. What automatically makes a vet the right person to put in charge of guarding our kids? What makes them be a better protector of our children then teachers? 
Not sure how many, but there is a certain number of youth that joined the military instead of going to jail. These young adults were already in trouble with the law, and now many fell it is perfectly okay to put a weapon in their hands and be in charge of protecting our kids? Why? Because they learned how to use a weapon? How does that qualify them to protect our kids more so then say any rational adult that has perhaps had many more years using firearms? not to mention some age and wisdom most young adults have yet to acquire. Many of these troubled young adults that did join the military are still young adults and returning vets.
What about post tramatic stress disorder? Maybe they aren't diagnosed with it, but have it? I could go on, but you get the point.
I would not wantonly support a vet as the first choice to protect our children. Which brings up qualifying those vets to protect our kids. If they can be qualified, so can any responsible adult.
That being said, yes, I think returning vets "could" be a good choice, however, there could be some unseen complications. Being a vet is NOT an iron clad assurance they are the right person for the job.


----------



## SpaceCadet12364 (Apr 27, 2003)

Our local county HS normally has a deputy there, think for the whole day. Never noticed if he was packing heat though.....

Not in a uniform, but a polo shirt with his name on it.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> Not in a uniform, but a polo shirt with his name on it.


If his shirt tail is out, I'd bet he's carrying


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> What automatically makes a vet the right person to put in charge of guarding our kids? *What makes them be a better protector* of our children then teachers?


I'd say physical conditioning and weapons training.
Quite a few go from the military straight into police work.

Most cops don't get more than a couple of DAYS *actual *training with firearms before they turn them loose on the street


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

4nTN said:


> Thanks,I agree 100%!
> 
> 
> 
> some common sense is what this world is lacking.


Common sense tells us that we can do it for free by having a not-so-small army of volunteers like George Zimmerman guard schools, but you see the obvious problem in that.


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

Are you making another funny, Nevada? Or have you missed the latest developments in the Martin Zimmerman case? More and more the media's malignant treatment of Zimmerman is being revealed. Crump is in a huge bind since his lies have been exposed. I wouldn't be surprised to see him eventually disbarred.

Even after taking a helluva beating, Zimmerman only needed one shot. I think Zimmerman's heart is in the right place. He may have a future in law enforcement. He's already demonstrated a concern for his neighbors and proper behavior by law enforcement.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> Common sense tells us that we can do it for free by having a not-so-small army of volunteers like George Zimmerman guard schools, but you see the *obvious problem* in that.


What problem?
He did nothing illegal


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

Bearfootfarm said:


> What problem?
> He did nothing illegal


Especialy when you compare his actions to that of this administration, Zimmerman was framed by this administration and the media! Abc is going to PAY big time for their lies! Hope it's enough to force them out of business!


----------



## CesumPec (May 20, 2011)

Nevada said:


> Common sense tells us that we can do it for free by having a not-so-small army of volunteers like George Zimmerman guard schools, but you see the obvious problem in that.


Assuming you are right and your comment is a valid argument against volunteers, if I can produce the name of a cop that went bad, killed someone innocent, miss used his gun or tazer, would that be proof that cops can't be trusted to protect our children? 

If not, please explain to me why you think cops are the best solution to guard schools.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

CesumPec said:


> Assuming you are right and your comment is a valid argument against volunteers, if I can produce the name of a cop that went bad, killed someone innocent, miss used his gun or tazer, would that be proof that cops can't be trusted to protect our children?
> 
> If not, please explain to me why you think cops are the best solution to guard schools.


Cops kill innocent citizens all the time. California cities and counties pay millions every year to families that had an innocent loved one killed by the police. Interesting that it seems like every death by cop, the cops shot 100 rounds, hit their own cars, surounding buildings, and the victim only has 2 bullits in him! Some of the ones I know can't be trusted.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

CesumPec said:


> If not, please explain to me why you think cops are the best solution to guard schools.


I don't want cops in schools.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> I don't want cops in schools.


Why are you against* protecting* innocent American children?


----------



## CesumPec (May 20, 2011)

Nevada said:


> I don't want cops in schools.


Hey, me neither. Armed teachers are good enough


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

Nevada said:


> I don't want cops in schools.


I didn't want cops in my schools either. I guess we were lucky enough to be able to bring guns to school for target practice since the main building was designed with a shooting range in the basement! Nobody ever got shot at North Hollywood High!


----------



## beowoulf90 (Jan 13, 2004)

4nTN said:


> okay first of all you can`t try and figure what is going to deter a NUT.
> 
> 
> BUT,If I was a nut I`d be way more deterred by an armed Police officer or a uniformed official of any sort.
> ...


So what are you saying those of us who carry concealed can't concentrate on our jobs?

If so that is a very bigoted statement.. You obviously don't think those of us who carry can do a good job.. 

Let me put it this way.. I'm the only one who carries at my place of work. There are only 2 of us in the Commercial estimating department. In this past year, me and the other person bid over $40 million dollars worth of work ( unfortunately we didn't win all of those contract for work), but the point is prior to 2010 there were 6 of us in the Commercial Estimating department, and at that time I was the draftsman for those 5 estimators, they had never bid more than $37 Million worth of work in a year.

So with your logic the 2 of us that still have jobs shouldn't be able to do this amount of work, because I carry a concealed weapon and can't give my job my full attention..

That is bogus and shows your true thoughts..

Oh and besides doing the Plumbing Estimating I still have to do all the drafting work that needs done for the jobs we do win..


----------



## therunbunch (Oct 5, 2009)

I'm ex-military. I wouldn't mind being an armed "teacher's aide". I could help grade papers, read to the children, work with some of the kids needing extra help and be carrying at the same time. Wouldn't that benefit the kids more than a cop standing post all day? I don't want COPS in there either.. that's inviting more of the goobermint in. Ask a vet. I heard about a great Dad program where the dads volunteered to help out at their kids schools and be a presence of security (this is all before this incident). Nothing wrong with that either. Who better to protect our kids than parents (trained of course).


----------



## wannabechef (Nov 20, 2012)

SpaceCadet12364 said:


> Our local county HS normally has a deputy there, think for the whole day. Never noticed if he was packing heat though.....
> 
> Not in a uniform, but a polo shirt with his name on it.


You would think the same about me, I promise you can't tell if I am carrying.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Darren said:


> *If you want to prevent another Newtown*
> it's time to write your representatives in Congress asking them to modify the _Gun-Free School Zones Act_ to allow school personnel and other lawful CCW holders to have firearms in the zones.
> 
> Do it for the children.


Simply ask yourself this question or put yourself in the place where a gunman opens fire. Do you want a gun to defend yourself? Do you want another authorized individual to help you take the gunman out?

Threr is no real thought given to these absurd ideas of gun control in America. It is simply a step in the direction of further control. And so many go along with it, and even join in with ignorant contribution.


----------



## SteveD(TX) (May 14, 2002)

Nevada said:


> I don't want cops in schools.


Bill Clinton's answer to shooters killing kids in schools shortly after Columbine was a program entitled "Cops In Schools".

But now that the NRA is suggesting it, the liberals are all over them saying how horrible that would be.

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Journalism/2012/12/21/Flashback-Clinton-Cops-in-Schools


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

SteveD(TX) said:


> Bill Clinton's answer to shooters killing kids in schools shortly after Columbine was a program entitled "Cops In Schools".
> 
> But now that the NRA is suggesting it, the liberals are all over them saying how horrible that would be.
> 
> http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Journalism/2012/12/21/Flashback-Clinton-Cops-in-Schools


It wasn't a good idea then, and it isn't a good idea now.

The problem is that cops aren't going to be content to simply wait for a shooting. Statistically, that's not likely to happen in several lifetimes of guarding a school. They will amuse themselves by trying to enforce other laws, which is putting school kids under a legal microscope. That would be just for drugs either, it would likely result in common schoolyard fights getting assault & battery charges. There's no end to what they might enforce. Half the population might have a criminal record by the time they graduate high school.

Having cops at schools is a terrible, TERRIBLE idea.


----------



## SteveD(TX) (May 14, 2002)

Nevada said:


> It wasn't a good idea then, and it isn't a good idea now.
> 
> The problem is that cops aren't going to be content to simply wait for a shooting. Statistically, that's not likely to happen in several lifetimes of guarding a school. They will amuse themselves by trying to enforce other laws, which is putting school kids under a legal microscope. That would be just for drugs either, it would likely result in common schoolyard fights getting assault & battery charges. There's no end to what they might enforce. Half the population might have a criminal record by the time they graduate high school.
> 
> Having cops at schools is a terrible, TERRIBLE idea.


Sorry, I'm not buying it. There are plenty of students being arrested for drugs without cops in schools, and plenty of schoolyard fights end up with assault charges being filed. Most districts regard their school resource officer programs to be successful. The program should emphasize protection and awareness of potential problems, not jack-booted thuggery handcuffing kids for scuffles. Shouldn't be hard to do and problem officers could be quickly identified. Not having trained armed adults in our schools to protect our children is a terrible TERRIBLE idea. You will NEVER get the guns out of the hands of crazed lunatics bent on killing people. This is our only answer.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

SteveD(TX) said:


> Sorry, I'm not buying it. There are plenty of students being arrested for drugs without cops in schools, and plenty of schoolyard fights end up with assault charges being filed. Most districts regard their school resource officer programs to be successful. The program should emphasize protection and awareness of potential problems, not jack-booted thuggery handcuffing kids for scuffles. Shouldn't be hard to do and problem officers could be quickly identified. Not having trained armed adults in our schools to protect our children is a terrible TERRIBLE idea. You will NEVER get the guns out of the hands of crazed lunatics bent on killing people. This is our only answer.


This reminds me of the days after 9/11. Aside from the fact that 9/11 happened, the odds of a highrise disaster were still extremely remote. The same is true for school shootings.


----------



## SteveD(TX) (May 14, 2002)

Nevada said:


> This reminds me of the days after 9/11. Aside from the fact that 9/11 happened, the odds of a highrise disaster were still extremely remote. The same is true for school shootings.


I would agree. But people like you didn't see a need for armed guards or cops in schools after Columbine either. Twenty first graders and 7 teachers and administrators just paid the price for that line of thinking.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

SteveD(TX) said:


> I would agree. But people like you didn't see a need for armed guards or cops in schools after Columbine either. Twenty first graders and 7 teachers and administrators just paid the price for that line of thinking.


How does that relate to the remoteness of the chances for a school attack?


----------



## CesumPec (May 20, 2011)

Nevada said:


> How does that relate to the remoteness of the chances for a school attack?


Reporter to Pres: What do you intend to do about school shootings?

Pres: based on assurances from a person called Nevada, I have made a decision. There are over 100,000 schools, Universities, and private schools in the USA and each school has dozens of classrooms on average. There is only one big mass shooting each year. So the odds of a shooter coming into your child's school and picking your child's classroom and actually shooting your child are very small. Therefore I have decided to just let this slide and do nothing Nevada says that would be OK. Next question?


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

CesumPec said:


> Reporter to Pres: What do you intend to do about school shootings?
> 
> Pres: based on assurances from a person called Nevada, I have made a decision. There are over 100,000 schools, Universities, and private schools in the USA and each school has dozens of classrooms on average. There is only one big mass shooting each year. So the odds of a shooter coming into your child's school and picking your child's classroom and actually shooting your child are very small. Therefore I have decided to just let this slide and do nothing Nevada says that would be OK. Next question?


We spent a ton of money after 9/11 and all we have to show for it is a lot of debt. I'm not a big fan of raiding the treasury for political gain, and we don't need to spend billions on cops in schools.

Limit clip size, make it a crime for a gun owner to make firearms available to unauthorized persons, and see what we can do to help more mentally ill people. That's what will make a difference.


----------



## Mooselover (May 4, 2009)

oh yeah...let's just give weapons to over-worked, under-paid, stressed-out teachers!! they already have to deal with a dysfunctional system and called to the carpet because their students aren't learning (yes, it IS the teachers fault because students are abused, neglected, and starving when they GET to school). yep....let's just the teachers in to some SWAT training. that will solve EVERYTHING!!!! why in the hell would anyone ever focus on mental health issues?? IDK...maybe lack of funding? maybe gun violence is more exciting than actually dealing with serious carp like mental health?


----------



## wannabechef (Nov 20, 2012)

Nevada said:


> We spent a ton of money after 9/11 and all we have to show for it is a lot of debt. I'm not a big fan of raiding the treasury for political gain, and we don't need to spend billions on cops in schools.
> 
> Limit clip size, make it a crime for a gun owner to make firearms available to unauthorized persons, and see what we can do to help more mentally ill people. That's what will make a difference.


Guess you don't realize how many AR15 magazines and stolen guns are in circulation right now do you?

Do me a favor, push that crap in your state, keep it the hell out of mine.


----------



## wannabechef (Nov 20, 2012)

Nevada said:


> How does that relate to the remoteness of the chances for a school attack?


Do you have children in school? I want someone with a gun at our schools.


----------



## wannabechef (Nov 20, 2012)

Nevada said:


> This reminds me of the days after 9/11. Aside from the fact that 9/11 happened, the odds of a highrise disaster were still extremely remote. The same is true for school shootings.


So we should just do nothing?

Since its so highly unlikely, lets leave hi-cap mags and "assault rifles" out of the question....meanwhile lets arm some parents and teachers and do away with the "victim zones" at schools.


----------



## wannabechef (Nov 20, 2012)

Nevada said:


> It wasn't a good idea then, and it isn't a good idea now.
> 
> The problem is that cops aren't going to be content to simply wait for a shooting. Statistically, that's not likely to happen in several lifetimes of guarding a school. They will amuse themselves by trying to enforce other laws, which is putting school kids under a legal microscope. That would be just for drugs either, it would likely result in common schoolyard fights getting assault & battery charges. There's no end to what they might enforce. Half the population might have a criminal record by the time they graduate high school.
> 
> Having cops at schools is a terrible, TERRIBLE idea.


If the kids are a problem they should be punished...this is what's wrong with kids today an why you have kids shooting up schools.

Nah, lets just give them a pass and hope they turn out right later in life.

You are a real piece of work Nevada.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

Nevada said:


> We spent a ton of money after 9/11 and *all we have to show for it is a lot of debt*. I'm not a big fan of raiding the treasury for political gain, and we don't need to spend billions on cops in schools.
> 
> Limit clip size, make it a crime for a gun owner to make firearms available to unauthorized persons, and see what we can do to help more mentally ill people. That's what will make a difference.


 
Really? Have we had this same type of terrorist attack on our soil since then? Have any suspected terrorist plots been exposed, and the terrorist arrested? Since you supported Obama wholeheartedly, doesn't his continuation of these horrible anti constitutional NDAA laws, bother you in the slightest?

The mentally ill need to be put away so they won't harm anyone. They can't be relied upon to take medication as directed and are a danger to the public. Problem is, who decides who's nut's? And criminals need to be punished for their crimes, not sent to a prison hotel with all the amenities!(kinda like Joe's, but harsher) Right now, in most of the country, criminals are NOT affraid that their victim will be armed, so crimes are commited with impunity, so let those that want to, carry! Used to shoot at my high school, carry my rifle in the rack in the back window. In Los Angeles no less. We have become so much wussified and less tolerant as a sociaty since those days(1975) it's pathetic.


----------



## SteveD(TX) (May 14, 2002)

Crazy people with guns intent on going out with their name in the papers tend to prey on innocent defenseless people; like those in movie theaters and children in schools. It's obvious from this thread that some people prefer to keep them defenseless and unprotected.

The obvious answer is to protect them with people with the ability to stop and prevent such tragedies. Working more with those who are mentally ill is part of the strategy but this alone is not nearly enough. Guess you could lock them all away though, right?


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

SteveD(TX) said:


> Guess you could lock them all away though, right?


We used to do that. The problem was that patient's rights were often violated, so rules were changed to be more democratic towards mental patients. State & county governments went along with it because letting those people out saved them a fortune. Mass shootings aren't the only social problem letting mental patients out has created, since it's contributed to the homeless problem as well.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

Nevada said:


> We used to do that. The problem was that patient's rights were often violated, so rules were changed to be more democratic towards mental patients. State & county governments went along with it because letting those people out saved them a fortune. Mass shootings aren't the only social problem letting mental patients out has created, since it's contributed to the homeless problem as well.


What about my rights to live in peace without maniacs running around because some bleeding heart decided their rights are more important than those of sane people. Let the insane live with those that want them released. Wanna bet that won't happen?


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

JeffreyD said:


> What about my rights to live in peace without maniacs running around because some bleeding heart decided their rights are more important than those of sane people. Let the insane live with those that want them released. Wanna bet that won't happen?


This is the same discussion we had after 9/11; which was constitutional rights vs the right to safety. If you recall, we decided on safety after 9/11. History has not looked kindly on that decision, and conservatives have denied backing it pretty much across the board.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

Nevada said:


> This is the same discussion we had after 9/11; which was constitutional rights vs the right to safety. If you recall, we decided on safety after 9/11. History has not looked kindly on that decision, and conservatives have denied backing it pretty much across the board.


Why didn't you mention that liberals denied it's backing too! Why? I didn't support it then, and I still don't. Do you support the NDAA?


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

JeffreyD said:


> Why didn't you mention that liberals denied it's backing too! Why? I didn't support it then, and I still don't.


All I can tell you is what happened here in 2003 (yes, I was here in 2003 no matter when it says my start date was). Conservatives told me that I just didn't understand the dangers and ruthlessness of Islamic extremists, so I wasn't qualified to speak against the PATRIOT Act. That's despite the fact that I used to live in the middle east.



JeffreyD said:


> Do you support the NDAA?


We spend WAY too much on defense.


----------



## SteveD(TX) (May 14, 2002)

Nevada said:


> How does that relate to the remoteness of the chances for a school attack?


Remoteness?? One shooting is way too many. Remoteness? Do you realize how many shootings there have been in schools in recent years? We need to take action TODAY to stop the senseless killings.

- Banning large capacity magazines - won't work.
- Beefing up mental illness programs - might eventually help some.
- Beefing up school security without armed guards - didn't help those kids at Sandy Hook.
- Banning all semi-automatic weapons - won't work

- Armed police officers and specially trained teachers, ex-military, retired cops, etc. on campus - will start working TODAY.

When will people realize how important protecting our children is? Remoteness? Really?

http://www.radaronline.com/exclusives/2012/12/deadliest-school-shootings-us-history


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

SteveD(TX) said:


> When will people realize how important protecting our children is? Remoteness? Really?


At a cost of $10 billion/year, are you willing to spend the same amount feeding children? I mean it's all about the children, isn't it?


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

Nevada said:


> At a cost of $10 billion/year, are you willing to spend the same amount feeding children? I mean it's all about the children, isn't it?


No, it isn't. It's the parents responsability to feed their own kids.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

JeffreyD said:


> No, it isn't. It's the parents responsability to feed their own kids.


It's not about the kids, it's about the guns.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

Nevada said:


> It's not about the kids, it's about the guns.


Yea I know, but you brought the children up! Kids should be taught how to shoot in school and to protect themselves.


----------



## SteveD(TX) (May 14, 2002)

Nevada said:


> At a cost of $10 billion/year, are you willing to spend the same amount feeding children? I mean it's all about the children, isn't it?


Are you suggesting that it's not possible to protect them and feed them too?


----------



## pancho (Oct 23, 2006)

SteveD(TX) said:


> Are you suggesting that it's not possible to protect them and feed them too?


It may be possible to do both but why do I have to do it when I don't have a kid in school?
Why can't the parents do the job?
At one time parents didn't even think who was going to protect and feed their children. They took on that responsibility when they chose to have kids.
Now days, parents are more than willing to take money from others to provide both for their children.


----------



## SteveD(TX) (May 14, 2002)

pancho said:


> It may be possible to do both but why do I have to do it when I don't have a kid in school?
> Why can't the parents do the job?
> At one time parents didn't even think who was going to protect and feed their children. They took on that responsibility when they chose to have kids.
> Now days, parents are more than willing to take money from others to provide both for their children.


I'm not suggesting exactly WHO should do it. Of course it's the parents' responsibility. But I don't want to see any poor or neglected child go without either.


----------



## Mooselover (May 4, 2009)

oh...i forgot to ask this question 'who the hell determines the sanity of the teachers'? i've yet to see a psych-eval needed to be a teacher. so now, we discuss arming teachers. i be so lost/stupid....


----------



## ChristieAcres (Apr 11, 2009)

I believe everyone with a CCW should be allowed to carry 24/7 anywhere, if desired (remember, this means CONCEALED). Also, sick of hearing semi-auto's referred to as Assault Rifles, as though they are akin to machine guns...

Mooselover, there is no guarantee any who get a CCW isn't going to snap. Here in WA, you are required to pass a background check and take a safety course. Any red flags, and you are denied. Again, no guarantee.

If an armed evil person enters any public place and starts killing people, it may only take one bullet to STOP "it!" or it may take more than one shot to take "it" out. There is a guarantee, if the evil person is killed, "it" will stop killing innocent people. It is also guaranteed, if the evil person isn't killed, "it" will kill as many as "it" wants or until "it" runs out of ammunition.

*Laws are for the Law Abiding, not for Criminals...*

Disarming Law Abiding Citizens is akin to leaving them virtually defenseless against the *armed lawless* among us all!

Statistically, mass murders are mostly committed in areas of the least defense and with higher concentrated populace. A movie theator, for example. 

DS and DD went to a Jr High with one armed LEO. There were zero issues with violent crimes at their school. They went to the same High School and there were actually two armed LEO's, and the amazing fact was zero violent crimes. My goodness, haven't heard of a student being caught with a single gun. 

When I lived in WY, many years ago, it was legal to CC without a permit. A woman's purse was considered part of her person. Since I was living in a city with 7:1 men vs women, a high sexual violence rate, and got off work later in the evenings? I had a little semi-auto in my purse, kept it there, always loaded, 24/7. There were no accidents and one time it saved my life. Of course, those who are against a responsible adult having one would rather have seen what was left of my body on the side of the hwy, instead of me having the right and the ability to protect myself. At the time, this had to be a split second decision, and made without hesitation.

Only a parent, whose precious child was shot in cold blood, wholly unprotected in an atmosphere thought to be so "safe," can even begin to describe the horror, the depth of the pain, and the violation of the trust they had. The trust? Most parents with children at Newton, thought their children were safe. A gun free zone? *Again, the LAWLESS do not obey the Law! *


----------



## Mooselover (May 4, 2009)

weird story...when i acquired my weapon (gift) i registered it in the county i was living in. when i moved to this county, i thought i was being responsible and took myself and weapon to be registered. they looked at me like i had 2 heads...no record of me or my weapon.... AND questioned WHY i was there!!!!!!


----------



## wannabechef (Nov 20, 2012)

Mooselover said:


> oh...i forgot to ask this question 'who the hell determines the sanity of the teachers'? i've yet to see a psych-eval needed to be a teacher. so now, we discuss arming teachers. i be so lost/stupid....


Is there anything stopping a teacher right now from bringing a gun to school?


----------



## wannabechef (Nov 20, 2012)

The whole background check is a stupid thing...me thinks Chicago gang bangers don't apply for carry permits.


----------



## PaLady (Oct 24, 2006)

The bottom line here is there are no guarantees in this life. Countless bans and regulations aren't the only answers. I believe the good Lord brings you in the world and only HE decides when you leave it. Does that mean we just bury our heads in the sand and pretend everything is great? Absolutely not! But we need to be PRO-ACTIVE and not RE-ACTIVE and right now, that's what's happening with this country. It's REacting to a series of events that we had NO control over. So, instead of banning guns (which will DISarm law abiding citizens) implement other ideas that could make a difference. Armed security, metal detectors (in place for alot of years now), doors that lock automatically from the outside requiring an intercom system to enter, allowing some teachers to carry concealed weapons, etc. We could do all these things and tragedy will always find a way of happening, but that doesn't mean that we stop trying.

On a personal note, my daughter is teacher in Northern NH. She teaches elementary school in a seemingly sleepy, little town. However, hazard pay is figured into her salary and she carries concealed...and she's never once thought about shooting one of her students. We can use fear as prompt for anything but fear is what causes many irrational decisions...a country divided by fear mongering is exactly what this administration has created from the start and only WE can stop that by not buying into it. It's a deliberate decision that each individual has to make in order to live in this country and sleep at night.


----------



## reluctantpatriot (Mar 9, 2003)

Based on a research study, the probability of a mass shooting event in a public school has an effective probability of occurence of approximately once in 13,500 years. Additionally, physical security measures that would otherwise be fine in a work setting, such as metal detectors, are not perceived psychologically and intellectually the same way by students in a public school. That being said, research studies also indicate that including school counselors and psychologists in planning proactive discipline policies and security measures can better prevent future problems than zero tolerance policies or doing nothing.

While school resource officers do help as part of proactive measures for school security, they cannot be the only solution. As they wear a uniform, even if casual in design, they are still easy to target. They should be combined with armed teachers and administrators whom wear no formal or informal uniform besides normal clothing.

We can turn public schools into walled fortresses, but the emotional and psychological health of the students will suffer. Besides, even in maximum security prisons inmates are still murdered. Rather than go down that road, we need to have processes within schools to help deal with internal issues that could cause students or staff to feel dispondent to the point that they might act out violently. Along with that we need the means to deal with external threats from individuals outside of schools, such as parents, neighbors and other individuals who also might be pushed to dispondency or have need of mental healthcare before they act out.


----------



## PaLady (Oct 24, 2006)

There is no good answer here and trying to get Congress to find an acceptable solution is going that everyone can agree upon is going to take as long (or longer) than trying to get them all to agree on a budget...pretty much never. And with "Uncle Joe" running the show...there won't be a good solution to be found...


----------



## Mooselover (May 4, 2009)

wannabechef said:


> Is there anything stopping a teacher right now from bringing a gun to school?


EXACTLY! and fantastic question. i'm sorta wonder'n how many teachers have shot students? not be'n snarky...just sorta curious if anyone has any stats on that.


----------



## wannabechef (Nov 20, 2012)

Mooselover said:


> EXACTLY! and fantastic question. i'm sorta wonder'n how many teachers have shot students? not be'n snarky...just sorta curious if anyone has any stats on that.


Doesn't look like many...in fact, a quick glace I read one.

https://www.google.com/search?q=tea...s=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a

It did appear that students shooting teachers was more popular.


----------

