# Who's going to pay for it?



## Oldcountryboy (Feb 23, 2008)

WHO is going to pay for it? The NRA and several people on this board say the answer to the school shootings is to hire armed guards to watch over them. With the average armed guard making $31,000 a year X the number of guards a school should have, who's gonna pay that bill? 

I know the school district I work for couldn't afford to hire AG's. They laid off half the school support personel this last year to come within budget. Just one security guard would require the salary of about 3 support personel. Now if we had a armed security guard at every door to every building, to every school grounds entrance, then we would need at least a half dozen AG's on the payroll. That would be an average of $186,000 dollars my school district would have to come up with. 

Where's that $186,000 gonna come from? You say you'll pay through taxes. What kind of taxes? In my area if you say raise taxes, your gonna get a grumbling crowd mad at you. We feel like we're taxed to death already. If you say raise property taxes, you'll have a bunch of mad ranchers breathing down the back of your neck and they'll be basically the only ones paying any taxes as out here in the sticks the ranching business greatly exceed other types of property. And believe me they can raise thier voice when it comes to raising property taxes. 

If you say raise the taxes on goods, when purchased from business. That wont work either, as it seems 50% or more of the people around here are using Snap benefits to live on. You don't pay taxes when using Snap. That's why my little town can't raise money to do anything with, they don't collect enough taxes through sells to do anything with. 

I picture this is purty much the same scenario all across the United States in small rural area's, especially if you live in a Red State. Only major metropolitan areas would be able to have AG's, and they probably wouldn't have enough AG's to keep mass shootings from happening again. 

Futhermore, I feel your asking me to pay taxes just so you people can keep your toys. Your asking me to pay taxes so you can have your fun. Your asking me to help fund the next mass shooter! This, I do not want. 

Here's a better ideal! How about we hire sufficient AG's for our schools and their salary will be paid 100 % by you people who own military type weapons and handguns with high capacity clips. And you should also pay funeral expenses and give the victims family a hardship fund of say at least $100,000 and more depending on what suffering the victim went thru before dying. Also pay all medical bills and a hardship fund to all surviving victims. 

Your the one who wants to keep your toys, you pay the bill! Not me!


----------



## zant (Dec 1, 2005)

Pay for it....The same people that are being FORCED to pay for OBAMACARE....most don't want that either......


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

That's why allowing teachers and staff CCW is a good solution. I've yet to read about a teacher killing students. This is a situation that needs a heavy application of common sense. There isn't one solution to school protection. 

If your school system can't afford armed guards, there won't be armed guards, unless you expect the government to order that. In that case you need to talk to your elected representatives.The NRA expanded the discussion by bring their expertise and resources to the table.

If anything, we don't need to eliminate options this early. As another poster mentioned, some don't want to consider the quality of mental health services. Others assocaited with the entertainment industry are panicking that the pervasive violence in video games and movies may be scrutinized.

While armed guards in your local schools may not work, it is working elsewhere and may work in other communities.


----------



## Oldcountryboy (Feb 23, 2008)

Darren said:


> While armed guards in your local schools may not work, it is working elsewhere and may work in other communities.


So who's to say that the next mass shooter isn't going to pick out a school that can't afford armed guards? So now your back to the same problem. Solution.....unsolved! 

You typed: I have yet to read about a teacher killing students.

Well if they're allowed to carry weapons in school, you probably will. It may not happen often, but it will sooner or later. Teachers get disgruntled just like factory workers and other types of employees. They may not shoot a student, but they might shoot the administrator for his/her disclipanary actions against them or another teacher they're having issues with. 

How would you like to fire someone knowing they're carrying a Glock?


----------



## FeralFemale (Apr 10, 2006)

http://www.nationalreview.com/corne...funding-school-safety-programs-andrew-johnson#


----------



## pancho (Oct 23, 2006)

Take a look at the support people in each school. 
There are more of them than they are teachers.
You could probably hire a couple of guards with the pay needed for one of the personal secretaries of the big shots.


----------



## bjba (Feb 18, 2003)

Oldcountryboy said:


> WHO is going to pay for it? The NRA and several people on this board say the answer to the school shootings is to hire armed guards to watch over them. With the average armed guard making $31,000 a year X the number of guards a school should have, who's gonna pay that bill?
> 
> I know the school district I work for couldn't afford to hire AG's. They laid off half the school support personel this last year to come within budget. Just one security guard would require the salary of about 3 support personel. Now if we had a armed security guard at every door to every building, to every school grounds entrance, then we would need at least a half dozen AG's on the payroll. That would be an average of $186,000 dollars my school district would have to come up with.
> 
> ...


Are you laboring under the delusion that any gun control law will be free?
Ask the Canadians how much their ineffective registration/control system has 
cost. Ask the Australians the same question. A massive bureaucracy will be required and implemented. How has the war on drugs worked out for you
how many trillions have been spent on a totally ineffective program. 
Why is the one common denominator, mental illness, for the attacks over the past few years being ignored or swept under the rug? 
When will you and so many like you finally address the problem and not a symptom?


----------



## Oldcountryboy (Feb 23, 2008)

FeralFemale said:


> http://www.nationalreview.com/corne...funding-school-safety-programs-andrew-johnson#


Thing is, with the economy so low, they have to cut somewhere and no matter where they cut, it hurts the school. Reaon why my school district had to let so many support personel go, was because of the economy. Low economy means low funds for the school to operate on.


----------



## ninny (Dec 12, 2005)

How many AG's would the $535 million that was given to Solyndra hire? 

.


----------



## Oldcountryboy (Feb 23, 2008)

bjba said:


> .
> Why is the one common denominator, mental illness, for the attacks over the past few years being ignored or swept under the rug?
> When will you and so many like you finally address the problem and not a symptom?


So what's your solution to controlling the mental illness and keeping weapons out of their hands? The killer at Newton didn't buy the weapons he used, his mother did, and she had no mental illness that anyone was aware of. Does that mean anyone who wants to buy a weapon will have to have all thier family members evaluated for mental illness before they can purchase a gun, and for each gun purchased? Who's gonna pay for all that testing? The buyer? Or do you want me the tax payer to pay for it? How about you the assult weapon owner pay for it? That sounds more reasonable to me!


----------



## Ambereyes (Sep 6, 2004)

IMHO reasonable discussion has left the building.


----------



## Oldcountryboy (Feb 23, 2008)

Ambereyes said:


> IMHO reasonable discussion has left the building.


I haven't seen much Reasonable Discussion yet, except for what I post!!!:grin:


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

The proposal to have a policeman at each school doesn't prevent shootings, but hopefully ends them a little quicker.

To harden a school takes a lot more than a policeman. Plus one policeman can easily be taken out or outgunned (Columbine).


----------



## bignugly (Jul 13, 2011)

Oldcountryboy said:


> WHO is going to pay for it? The NRA and several people on this board say the answer to the school shootings is to hire armed guards to watch over them. With the average armed guard making $31,000 a year X the number of guards a school should have, who's gonna pay that bill?
> 
> I know the school district I work for couldn't afford to hire AG's. They laid off half the school support personel this last year to come within budget. Just one security guard would require the salary of about 3 support personel. Now if we had a armed security guard at every door to every building, to every school grounds entrance, then we would need at least a half dozen AG's on the payroll. That would be an average of $186,000 dollars my school district would have to come up with.
> 
> ...


Take the money budgeted from the defense department. What better place to get the money to defend our kids!


----------



## KnowOneSpecial (Sep 12, 2010)

Maybe the reason you haven't heard of a teacher shooting a student is because guns aren't allowed in schools. 

Our school district just barely passed a school bond issue (NOT a "referrendum" as those are different critters.) I will make our taxes go up $17 for every $150,000 assessed property value. Without it they would have to close two schools and cram 275 kids in a building built to hold 175, make all sports and extra curriculars 'pay for play', including band and choir. Remedial reading programs were going to be cut down to almost nothing and several teachers would have to be cut as there would be no more electives. We still have cuts, but not as drastic as without the bonds. 

So tell me how we should pay to have armed guards at each school? If you figure the basic armed guard would make $50,000 a year (more than our average teacher.) and we have 7 different school buildings in our district, that's $350,000 a year we need to come up with. If people won't vote to keep reading programs do you really think they're going to vote to pay for armed guards just so a very small percentage of our society can have assult rifles? 

My solution? Tax all assult rifles and large ammo clips 100%.


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

KnowOneSpecial said:


> Maybe the reason you haven't heard of a teacher shooting a student is because guns aren't allowed in schools.
> 
> Our school district just barely passed a school bond issue (NOT a "referrendum" as those are different critters.) I will make our taxes go up $17 for every $150,000 assessed property value. Without it they would have to close two schools and cram 275 kids in a building built to hold 175, make all sports and extra curriculars 'pay for play', including band and choir. Remedial reading programs were going to be cut down to almost nothing and several teachers would have to be cut as there would be no more electives. We still have cuts, but not as drastic as without the bonds.
> 
> ...


What kept teachers from taking a gun to school and killing students? Do you believe that teachers or their spouses have no guns at home? Obviously the gun free school zones never worked.


----------



## ninny (Dec 12, 2005)

KnowOneSpecial said:


> Maybe the reason you haven't heard of a teacher shooting a student is because *guns aren't allowed in schools.*
> 
> Our school district just barely passed a school bond issue (NOT a "referrendum" as those are different critters.) I will make our taxes go up $17 for every $150,000 assessed property value. Without it they would have to close two schools and cram 275 kids in a building built to hold 175, make all sports and extra curriculars 'pay for play', including band and choir. Remedial reading programs were going to be cut down to almost nothing and several teachers would have to be cut as there would be no more electives. We still have cuts, but not as drastic as without the bonds.
> 
> ...


I beg to differ. Some of the schools here in Texas allow teachers/admin with CCL license to carry weapons in school and to my knowledge there hasn't been any shootings by these teachers although I'm sure some of them would like to shoot some of their students.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2969565/posts

.

.


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

Ambereyes said:


> IMHO reasonable discussion has left the building.


The media is trying to make sure there isn't any real discussion. That's one of the reasons the NRA statement was well timed. It put another option on the table. While not widely reported, school officials and law enforcement across the country are supporting allowing teachers to carry concealed weapons.

We need to ditch the gun free school zone signs. Those are invitations to disaster. 

Fortunately health care professionals are also speaking up. Whether the anti-gun control groupies want it or not, the discussion has already expanded. Every poll I've seen by a national pollster shows more gun control is not at the top of American's wish list.

The majority of Americans want real answers to the dysfunctional elements of our society that have been desensitized to violence and provide a real possibility of future tragedies whether guns are available or not.

It doesn't take much time to find all kinds of non-firearm weapons on youtube. One showed young kids igniting coffee creamer. How long before someone picks up on thermite or a substitute and decides to add that to a full propane bottle for another Sandy Hook show and tell?

It doesn't take much imagination for a disturbed individual to find or make up their own There's a lot of things out there that go bang and aren't regulated at all. A common solution to solving a problem is root cause analysis. It's done when a bridge or a major building collapses. It's used in the social sciences too.

People that don't want to understand the problem, obviously have their own problems. Thank God, other voices are speaking out besides those that don't want to bothered by the true cause of the problem.


----------



## pancho (Oct 23, 2006)

Another way to pay for armed guards would be to put more money into safety of the students and less into sports.


----------



## Ana Bluebird (Dec 8, 2002)

IF we can have a discussion over this and NOT crazy "over my dead body" closed mind, I will put in my 2 cents. I agree with Old Country Boy: not only do I not want to pay for all the schools in my area to have armed guards, OR the teachers to pack (are you kidding me? when will they actually get to teach?), but I also hope that we don't have to live in a society that requires that our children need armed guards, bars on the building, double locked doors, etc. Most countries of the world do not live in the fear that we live in. Why? Lots and lots of guns and the need to have them around to play with. The NRA members that I know say, "who needs automatic weapons to hunt with or to defend their person or home? " It's way past time for some common sense.


----------



## Ambereyes (Sep 6, 2004)

The media and government propaganda are on full attack mode, while the real problem (mental illness) is basically ignored, except by a few. 

As to armed guards, it seems there are guards in most federal and state offices, take some of those and reassign them. Take some of the huge amounts of money paid to support big business and re-direct it to the schools. There is so much waste of money by government for political gains don't ya think they might protect the kids?


----------



## pancho (Oct 23, 2006)

Ana Bluebird said:


> The NRA members that I know say, "who needs automatic weapons to hunt with or to defend their person or home? " It's way past time for some common sense.


Can you name a place in your town that sells automatic weapons?
How many hunters do you know that has an automatic weapon?
How many people not hunters that you know have an automatic weapon?


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

Ana Bluebird said:


> IF we can have a discussion over this and NOT crazy "over my dead body" closed mind, I will put in my 2 cents. I agree with Old Country Boy: not only do I not want to pay for all the schools in my area to have armed guards, OR the teachers to pack (are you kidding me? when will they actually get to teach?), but I also hope that we don't have to live in a society that requires that our children need armed guards, bars on the building, double locked doors, etc. Most countries of the world do not live in the fear that we live in. Why? Lots and lots of guns and the need to have them around to play with. *The NRA members that I know say, "who needs automatic weapons to hunt with or to defend their person or home? " It's way past time for some common sense.*


Semi-automatic weapons have been around since the early 1900s. They were used for hunting decades before the military started using them. As for teachers packing, the idea of concealed carry is that. No one knows they have a weapon. 

I haven't heard anyone suggest that teachers that carry will have to take time off from teaching and stand guard at the door.


----------



## Ambereyes (Sep 6, 2004)

Darren said:


> Semi-automatic weapons have been around since the early 1900s. They were used for hunting decades before the military started using them. As for teachers packing, the idea of concealed carry is that. No one knows they have a weapon.
> 
> I haven't heard anyone suggest that teachers that carry will have to take time off from teaching and stand guard at the door.


Be careful the next hair on fire reaction will be that teachers will be carrying RPG's and nuclear weapons to school :happy:


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

Ambereyes said:


> Be careful the next hair on fire reaction will be that teachers will be carrying RPG's and nuclear weapons to school :happy:


Someone here at HT has already talked about bazookas. That's a word like Nazi or racist. When you read that, you know they've been "conditioned." Then you have the obvious ones that are uninformed at best about firearms. that was the whole point of mislabeling some rifles assault. When automatic shows up that's another "how do you get through to folks" situation.

The woman who wrote the tirade wanting the speculation about Adam Lanza to end is a prime example of someone who really isn't interested in facts. Let's not spend any time understanding why Sandy Hook happened. We need to restrict some sort of gun.

Sorry to preach to the choir.


----------



## CJ (May 10, 2002)

That's easy. Cut the ridiculous extra curricular activities like sports that don't belong in school to begin with, and it'll pay for the security team. Although my first choice would be to allow teachers to carry.


----------



## OkieDavid (Jan 15, 2007)

If we're gonna play that game how about we refund the property taxes paid by folks who don't have kids in that school system? Right now they are having to pay for something that doesn't benefit them at all.

Everyone will pay through increased property taxes. Might be a good thing and result in some much needed shool consolidation and close some of these little schools.


----------



## poppy (Feb 21, 2008)

Even most of the mentally ill are not stupid. The shooters choose soft targets with lots of possible victims. That's why you never hear of them walking into a shooting range or police station and trying this stuff. Harden the schools. Allow those teachers and school personnel that are trained and qualified to carry. If only 10% of them decide to carry, that is a huge deterrent.


----------



## pmondo (Oct 6, 2007)

OkieDavid said:


> If we're gonna play that game how about we refund the property taxes paid by folks who don't have kids in that school system? Right now they are having to pay for something that doesn't benefit them at all.
> 
> Everyone will pay through increased property taxes. Might be a good thing and result in some much needed shool consolidation and close some of these little schools.


hear hear I for one hate paying school tax the parents made them let them pay for their kids schooling not us with out kids


----------



## bjba (Feb 18, 2003)

Oldcountryboy said:


> So what's your solution to controlling the mental illness and keeping weapons out of their hands? The killer at Newton didn't buy the weapons he used, his mother did, and she had no mental illness that anyone was aware of. Does that mean anyone who wants to buy a weapon will have to have all thier family members evaluated for mental illness before they can purchase a gun, and for each gun purchased? Who's gonna pay for all that testing? The buyer? Or do you want me the tax payer to pay for it? How about you the assult weapon owner pay for it? That sounds more reasonable to me!


The National Comorbidity Survey Replication, the largest, most detailed survey of US mental health to date concluded 25% of US
citizens met the criteria for having a mental illness within the past year. The study found about 19 million citizens suffered from a serious
disorder that significantly interfered with their ability to function day to day. The study did not include the most serious illnesses such as 
schizophrenia.
Goodness yes lets continue to bury our collective head in the sand and ignore the fact that the US leads the world in mental illness and lags 
far behind in treatment. Yes it is far easier to blame inanimate objects for human action than to actually deal with a problem that is getting worse
by the day. Lanza just murdered his mother to avoid commitment and stole her guns to murder children. James Holmes was a paragon of mental
health whose Dr. tried to warn others but failed. It is interesting to note both Lanza and Holmes chose gun free zones to commit their murders. Jared Loughner, another paragon of mental health was forcibly medicated until he was found competent to stand trial. 
Keep your blinders on and ignore the problem while crying the sky is falling.
By the way who pays for the security at your bank, who pays for the security at the airport, who pays for the security at the court house, at the federal building at the game and etc and etc. The bank customers, taxpayers, taxpayers, taxpayers, fans, the users.


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

Ana Bluebird said:


> IF we can have a discussion over this and NOT crazy "over my dead body" closed mind, I will put in my 2 cents. I agree with Old Country Boy: not only do I not want to pay for all the schools in my area to have armed guards, OR the teachers to pack (are you kidding me? when will they actually get to teach?), but I also hope that we don't have to live in a society that requires that our children need armed guards, bars on the building, double locked doors, etc. Most countries of the world do not live in the fear that we live in. Why? Lots and lots of guns and the need to have them around to play with. The NRA members that I know say, "who needs automatic weapons to hunt with or to defend their person or home? " It's way past time for some common sense.


Let's say Adam Lanza had 2 handguns that would each fire 10 bullets before having to be reloaded. How many fewer children would have been killed?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> I haven't seen much Reasonable Discussion yet, except for what I post!!!:happy2:


That's why it's pointless to discuss this with you.
We give you serious answers, and you reply "but WHAT IF" to *everything*

Police officers in small towns don't start at $30,000
Many teachers would do it free.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

There is no reason to place more people on the payroll... I am pretty sure there are plenty of responsible adults already working in the schools who could be armed if they were "allowed" to be.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> Maybe the reason you haven't heard of a teacher shooting a student is *because guns aren't allowed in schools*.





> the basic armed guard would make *$50,000 a year*


At least TRY to be serious


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

MoonRiver said:


> Let's say Adam Lanza had 2 handguns that would each fire 10 bullets before having to be reloaded. How many fewer children would have been killed?


Its kinda hard to second guess outcomes,,,, "what if" the teacher had been armed? or the janitor? or the principal? or all of the above? What if mom hadnt spoiled the kid because he was "special"?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> IF we can have a discussion over this and NOT crazy "over my dead body" closed mind, I will put in my 2 cents. I agree with Old Country Boy: not only do I not want to pay for all the schools in my area to have armed guards, OR the teachers to pack (are you kidding me? when will they actually get to teach?), but *I also hope that we don't have to live in a society that requires that our children need armed guards, bars on the building, double locked doors, etc. *
> 
> *Most countries of the world do not live in the fear that we live in.* Why? Lots and lots of guns and the need to have them around to play with. The NRA members that I know say, "*who needs automatic weapons to hunt with* or to defend their person or home? " It's way past time for some common sense.


You can "hope" for anything you like, but you're not being* realistic.*
This isn't Disneyland, and there's not always a happy ending.
I think you're the one with the closed mind, because you're just repeating the same old *rhetoric* as all the anti gun crowd, and you REALLY don't know much about the facts at all

Nearly 1/3 of the schools in the country *ALREADY have armed security*


----------



## FeralFemale (Apr 10, 2006)

Banning high capacity magazines isn't the answer, either, BTW. How long does it take to put in another magazine? About a second.

That's another example of where gun education comes in. So many emotional people are throwing words like 'assault' 'automatic' 'semi automatic' 'machine' like they are the same thing. They don't know the difference between guns. Don't know how different guns work. Don't know what it actually intails to reload a gun. Etc. Etc. They, obviously, don't even know what types of guns are typically used in a mass shooting. They all seem to assume it is a military gun that 'sprays bullets' with one trigger pull.

Every bit of the gun control view is based on pure emotion, not on facts or 'common sense.' If any of them were educated about guns and what actually happened in these shootings, 'common sense' would tell them that guns aren't the problem.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

FeralFemale said:


> 'common sense' would tell them that guns aren't the problem.


Bingo.... there do seem to be a lot of folks who lack that basic ingredient... "common sense" these days. Sense is not nearly as common as it was in generations past.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> Every bit of the gun control view is based on* pure emotion*, not on facts or 'common sense.'


Exactly
They all use the same BUZZWORDS and phrases, and can't see that nothing they say makes sense in the REAL world.

That's why BO wants to rush this through.
He wants emotions to still be running high, rather than waitng a few months for things to *calm down*


----------



## ninny (Dec 12, 2005)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> There is no reason to place more people on the payroll... I am pretty sure there are plenty of responsible adults already working in the schools who could be armed if they were "allowed" to be.


We already have street crossing guards that are volunteers, why not someone that's armed to protect our children? I'm pretty sure you could find many people willing to volunteer.

.


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Its kinda hard to second guess outcomes,,,, "what if" the teacher had been armed? or the janitor? or the principal? or all of the above? What if mom hadnt spoiled the kid because he was "special"?


My point (which you must have missed) was that he could have killed as many kids using the 2 handguns as he did with the rifle. Liberals are making too much of the type of gun and ammunition. With no one to stop him, he had plenty of time to reload.


----------



## pancho (Oct 23, 2006)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Exactly
> They all use the same BUZZWORDS and phrases, and can't see that nothing they say makes sense in the REAL world.
> 
> That's why BO wants to rush this through.
> He wants emotions to still be running high, rather than waitng a few months for things to *calm down*


It stands to reason the people who want gun control have little knowledge or experience with weapons. It is sort of hard to try to explain anything to a person who knows nothing about guns. All they know is what some politician with the same experience and knowledge as they have tells them what to say.
Actually taking the time to research something as important as gun control isn't that important to some people.


----------



## bjba (Feb 18, 2003)

> My point (which you must have missed) was that he could have killed as many kids using the 2 handguns as he did with the rifle. Liberals are making too much of the type of gun and ammunition. With no one to stop him, he had plenty of time to reload. Moonriver


The Lubys' Cafeteria shooter was armed with a Glock 17 and Ruger P89. Using cartridges designed in 1902. He shot 50 killing 23 with as you suggested 2 handguns.


----------



## bluemoonluck (Oct 28, 2008)

The gun control talks remind me of BSL (breed specific legislation).

A pit bull attacks someone, so instead of looking at the owner who raised the dog to be vicious and making him accountable, everyone screams "ban all the pitbulls!" . So the city bans pit bulls, seizing them from law-abiding citizens and criminals alike, and destroys all of them.

Criminals go out and buy Rottweilers, and raise them the same way they raised their pits.... lo and behold, one of their Rotties attacks someone and AGAIN instead of looking at the OWNERS, everyone now screams "Ban all Rottweilers!". And again Rotties from criminals and law abiding citizens alike are seized and destroyed.

Criminals shrug again and go out and buy Dobermans....and the cycle continues. Because the problem isn't the DOG, it's the OWNER.

Same thing with gun control. The vast majority of gun owners in the USA are law-abiding citizens. But when a tragedy occurs with a gun as the weapon, instead of looking at the PEOPLE who are pulling the trigger, everyone jumps up and down and says "Ban the guns!". 

If all the guns are taken, those who are mentally unstable and wish to create havoc will :shrug: and make pipe bombs or IED's or some other weapon of destruction instead. Because banning guns does NOT address the underlying issue - that of mentally ill people who want to be famous / make a name for themselves / enjoy hurting others.

So how much sense does it make to seize a family pet from a home where it is loved, trained, always walked on a leash, licensed in accordance with local laws, and "used" responsibly just because some yahoo decided to leave his chained out in his yard and his dog bit someone? How much sense does it make to seize a firearm from a home where it is kept locked up, the people who use it have learned how to do so properly, it is registered in accordance with the law, and it is used responsibly just because some mentally ill individual decided to go down in a blaze of glory by shooting up a school?

Blaming the tool instead of the person wielding it is ineffective and IMHO, it is the coward's way out. Because someone who has a set of cahones would have the strength of character to stand up and say "We have a real problem in this country with the treatment of our mentally ill, and we need to figure out how to best serve that population" instead of saying "Ah heck, let's just ban the guns and go out for dinner and drinks afterwards and tell ourselves that we did a good deed today!"


----------



## oth47 (Jan 11, 2008)

ninny said:


> We already have street crossing guards that are volunteers, why not someone that's armed to protect our children? I'm pretty sure you could find many people willing to volunteer.
> 
> .


This is it right here.There is an army of fathers and grandfathers willing,able,and ready to stand between kids and death.Won't cost the taxpayers a dime. ETA There's enough to have several around every school,on the outside.


----------



## Oldcountryboy (Feb 23, 2008)

CJ said:


> That's easy. Cut the ridiculous extra curricular activities like sports that don't belong in school to begin with, and it'll pay for the security team. Although my first choice would be to allow teachers to carry.


Yea right!!! That would be like asking gun owners to give up thier guns! You would be getting the same answer. "Don't blame sports for the mental illness atrocities". 



Bearfootfarm said:


> You can "hope" for anything you like, but you're not being* realistic.*
> This isn't Disneyland,


This country isn't suppose to be a shooting arcade either! 



FeralFemale said:


> Banning high capacity magazines isn't the answer, either, BTW. How long does it take to put in another magazine? About a second..


Right! That's why the clip needs to be very limited on the number of ammo it can hold and thier needs to be at least a two step process of removing the clip. This would give more time for people to make it to safety. 

Also, I've been around firearms all my life and own several rifles and shotguns. I know the difference between a fully automatic and a semi automatic. And it's my opinion that if a rifle or handgun, fully or semi automatic, can shoot a massive number of ammo in such a short period of time and can be quickly reloaded,.......It' a assult weapon! It is not designed for hunting game animals. It is designed for mass destruction and mass killings, particularly people. And if we don't regulate ourselves through gun control, then we will end up loosing all our weapons through bannings. 



MoonRiver said:


> My point (which you must have missed) was that he could have killed as many kids using the 2 handguns as he did with the rifle. Liberals are making too much of the type of gun and ammunition. With no one to stop him, he had plenty of time to reload.


So are you saying the kid at newton only fired 20 shots total. I believe the news reported that most kids had been shot multiple times. So that could mean he shot 2 or 3 times per every individual he killed. So if a person is capable of killing that many people with that much ammo, we need to ban those types of weapons. 



pancho said:


> It stands to reason the people who want gun control have little knowledge or experience with weapons. It is sort of hard to try to explain anything to a person who knows nothing about guns. All they know is what some politician with the same experience and knowledge as they have tells them what to say.
> Actually taking the time to research something as important as gun control isn't that important to some people.


Aint nobody told me what to say, except my heart, which goes out to those 20 kids who were insinceably killed by weapons that shouldn't be on the market. And I've owned and been around guns most of my 52 years of life.


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

Oldcountryboy said:


> > Originally Posted by *MoonRiver*
> >
> > _My point (which you must have missed) was that he could have killed as many kids using the 2 handguns as he did with the rifle. Liberals are making too much of the type of gun and ammunition. With no one to stop him, *he had plenty of time to reload*._
> 
> ...


No, I'm not saying he only fired 20 shots. I said he had plenty of time to reload.


----------



## Pearl B (Sep 27, 2008)

> Futhermore, I feel your asking me to pay taxes just so you people can keep your toys. Your asking me to pay taxes so you can have your fun.


I never had children of my own. Why do I have to pay to educate your kid(s)? Why dont you educate them at home, or pay for the schools yourself? How about the only people that pay taxes for schools and education are the ones that have them? Sounds fair to me.

If I have to pay for the schools, I dont feel its to much more to have to pay for the guards.I would prefer to allow teachers to carry. And to allow people to keep their guns.

Ive seen the numbers of the people that were executed in other countries once they were disarmed.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> Futhermore, I feel *your asking me to pay taxes* just so you people can keep your toys. *Your asking me to pay taxes* so you can have your fun


Fine
It's OK if you don't pay your taxes
Happy NOW?


----------



## lonelytree (Feb 28, 2008)

Oldcountryboy said:


> Also, I've been around firearms all my life and own several rifles and shotguns. I know the difference between a fully automatic and a semi automatic. And it's my opinion that if a rifle or handgun, fully or semi automatic, can shoot a massive number of ammo in such a short period of time and can be quickly reloaded,.......It' a assult weapon! It is not designed for hunting game animals. It is designed for mass destruction and mass killings, particularly people. And if we don't regulate ourselves through gun control, then we will end up loosing all our weapons through bannings.


What you are telling me is that I have to bring a butter knife to a gunfight. I get 2 rounds and the bad guys get M-16s. 

Assault weapons "may" be used for hunting and I know several people that use them. It keeps them familar with their weapons. They are a tool. A tool to ensure liberty. 

Guns are never toys.


----------



## FeralFemale (Apr 10, 2006)

Oldcountryboy said:


> Aint nobody told me what to say, except my heart, which goes out to those 20 kids who were insinceably killed by weapons that shouldn't be on the market. And I've owned and been around guns most of my 52 years of life.


 
And there you have it folks. The reason behind it all -- emotion. 

We are all devastated that 20 kids were killed by that disturbed young man, but emotion is not something that allows a people to make logical and reasonable decisions. Something has to be done to find and stop these killers before they go off the deep end, but letting emotional rule is only going to create over reaching, non effective policy.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> This country isn't suppose to be a shooting arcade either!


It's not.
Less than 1% of all guns are used in a crime


----------



## FeralFemale (Apr 10, 2006)

Bearfootfarm said:


> It's not.
> Less than 1% of all guns are used in a crime


Shhhh....you're ruining his emotional hyperbole.


----------



## KnowOneSpecial (Sep 12, 2010)

Bearfootfarm said:


> At least TRY to be serious


 
I'm in Illinois. Pretty sure teachers aren't allowed to pack here. And I was using the salary of a local police officer. 


Now when will you get serious?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

FeralFemale said:


> Shhhh....you're ruining his emotional hyperbole.


 I'm trying my best!


----------



## zant (Dec 1, 2005)

Of course you could always stop spending 40 BILLION a yr on the FAKE "war on drugs" and use that money.....


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> I'm in Illinois. *Pretty sure teachers aren't allowed to pack here*. And I was using the salary of a local police officer.
> Now when will you get serious?


Police officers seldom START at $50,000 a year.

A SCHOOL GUARD wouldn't BE a "police officer"

I'm always serious when someone wants to take something from me


----------



## summerdaze (Jun 11, 2009)

What about doing away with the school's lunch program? I never thought it was the school's job to feed the kids anyway. Let them pack lunches. No school lunches mean no cafeteria workers. I'm imagining that would be at least 4 salaries (and maybe more in larger schools) eliminated right there. Use the savings from those personel plus whatever $$ are saved from the costs of food, equipment, etc to hire 1 or 2 guards instead.


----------



## bluemoonluck (Oct 28, 2008)

summerdaze said:


> What about doing away with the school's lunch program? I never thought it was the school's job to feed the kids anyway. Let them pack lunches. No school lunches mean no cafeteria workers. I'm imagining that would be at least 4 salaries (and maybe more in larger schools) eliminated right there. Use the savings from those personel plus whatever $$ are saved from the costs of food, equipment, etc to hire 1 or 2 guards instead.


The school lunch program is a Federal program - the $$$ for that comes from the Feds, not the State or Local Govts.


----------



## Old Vet (Oct 15, 2006)

Oldcountryboy said:


> WHO is going to pay for it? The NRA and several people on this board say the answer to the school shootings is to hire armed guards to watch over them. With the average armed guard making $31,000 a year X the number of guards a school should have, who's gonna pay that bill?
> 
> I know the school district I work for couldn't afford to hire AG's. They laid off half the school support personel this last year to come within budget. Just one security guard would require the salary of about 3 support personel. Now if we had a armed security guard at every door to every building, to every school grounds entrance, then we would need at least a half dozen AG's on the payroll. That would be an average of $186,000 dollars my school district would have to come up with.
> 
> ...


Where were you when Bill Clinton said the same thing and put it into effect? Over 1/4 of the schools have armed guards now but the shooters know that person is the only one to stop them so they go for him first. IF the other people that had a CCW could carry legally they wouldn't know who to get first. The cost would be staggering nothing with a few 0 at the end.


----------



## steff bugielski (Nov 10, 2003)

I wonder how many parents with guns in the house thought they were safe, locked up. Unloaded when their child shot a friend or family member?


I would think everyone of them.

What happens when the teacher thinks the gun is locked up or unloaded or safe when the child gets his hands on it and kills another child. What will be the next step.


Why stop at 1 armed guard? The killer can bust through the back door or better yet drive by and spray children at their desks through the windows.

I am not sure why a small measure of un-allowed types of weapons are such a big deal.
It will not stop someone who wants to kill. We know this but if it slows a killer down and he or she can be overtaken and one less person gets killed it will all be worth it.
Is your gun worth the life of another innocent human?
If you answer yes please have a long look at those you love. Is your gun worth the life of those you love?


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

Oldcountryboy said:


> Yea right!!! That would be like asking gun owners to give up thier guns! You would be getting the same answer. "Don't blame sports for the mental illness atrocities".
> 
> 
> 
> ...


So what about those 600+ kids that were shot in Illinois over the last ten or so years? They have the toughest gun laws in the country, yet kids are still killed! Why? With all the gun laws they have, it would be impossible, right? What did you do about those kids? Did thousands of gun laws protect them? Seems criminals don't care about laws!


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

steff bugielski said:


> I wonder how many parents with guns in the house thought they were safe, locked up. Unloaded when their child shot a friend or family member?
> 
> 
> I would think everyone of them.
> ...


Yes. Because millions of responsable gun owners never have a problem! What if, what if, what if my wife didn't have a gun when someone tried to rape her? What if that happened to you and you didn't have a weapon? Better safe then sorry.


----------



## TheMartianChick (May 26, 2009)

I apologize in advance to any teachers that might be offended by this post.

The idea of allowing teachers to carry a gun in school is one that I wouldn't expect to be very popular around here. So many people already have so little faith in the sense and sensibilities of teachers. What makes them believe that they will use good judgement with a weapon?

If we, as a nation, decide that we do need to have armed personnel in each school, maybe we could use current members of the armed forces. We already have them on the payroll and it wouldn't add an additional burden to the school districts.


----------



## steff bugielski (Nov 10, 2003)

JeffreyD said:


> Yes. Because millions of responsable gun owners never have a problem! What if, what if, what if my wife didn't have a gun when someone tried to rape her? What if that happened to you and you didn't have a weapon? Better safe then sorry.


Bet your wife was not carrying an *assault rifle *or a clip with *100* rounds in it.
My point.


----------



## Beowulf (Aug 27, 2010)

steff bugielski said:


> Bet your wife was not carrying an *assault rifle *or a clip with *100* rounds in it.
> My point.


 ... Do you even know what that looks like?


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

steff bugielski said:


> Bet your wife was not carrying an *assault rifle *or a clip with *100* rounds in it.
> My point.


Emotion not logical thinking shows up again. It would be nice if people took the time to inform themselves to understand what's being discussed. The picture below shows rifle clips which serve to bundle cartridges, not bullets, for insertion into a rifle. *The clip doesn't go into the rifle. There are no 100 round rifle clips. *










This is a 30 round magazine.for a M16 which is a military rifle used by the Army.










*Do hundred round magazines exist for rifles? Yes, they do for a small number of models. They're cumbersome and expensive. Adam Lanza didn't have one, nor have I ever read of one that was used in any domestic tragedies.

Genuine assault rifles are uncommon and not widely owned by the public even though federal law allows them if an individual qualifies. An assault rifle is capable of automatic fire. That means it will continue to fire as long as the trigger is held back and cartridges remain.

Below is a picture of a real assault rifle. If you want one you will have to fill out the federal paperwork and forward that plus fingerprints from your local law enforcement chief, plus a letter and $200 to the ATF. Possibly in six months you may get approval to purchase the rifle. The rifle itself will cost you from $15,000 to $18,000 and possibly as much as $22,000 to buy after you get permission from the federal government. That assumes your state of residence also permits you to own one.









True assault rifles are collector's items. 

Adam Lanza did not have an assault rifle at Sandy Hook. This is a media lie that's been repeated so many times, the public believes the misdirection. Contrary to media lies, an assault rifle has never been used to kill at a school.
*


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

steff bugielski said:


> Bet your wife was not carrying an *assault rifle *or a clip with *100* rounds in it.
> My point.


She had a semi-automatic pistol with a 12 round clip. That clip will be illegal! She carries without a permit because California likes victims and wants the citizens to depend on the government for their existance. We will not allow ourselves to be prey because of a stupid government employee that couldn't pick his/her nose by his/her self.


----------



## Old Vet (Oct 15, 2006)

Darren said:


> Emotion not logical thinking shows up again. It would be nice if people took the time to inform themselves to understand what's being discussed. The picture below shows rifle clips which serve to bundle cartridges, not bullets, for insertion into a rifle. *The clip doesn't go into the rifle. There are no 100 round rifle clips. *


Have you ever loaded a M1 Grand? Those clips go into the rifle and when empty they pop out. You must have them confused with stripper clips.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> Bet your wife was not carrying an *assault rifle *or a clip with *100* rounds in it.
> *My point*.


You have no point
You're just parroting the rhetoric
Stop and *THINK*


----------



## KnowOneSpecial (Sep 12, 2010)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Police officers seldom START at $50,000 a year.
> 
> A SCHOOL GUARD wouldn't BE a "police officer"
> 
> I'm always serious when someone wants to take something from me


So I can't be serious when you want to take more of my tax money to pay for these guards? 

You forget that while the people doing the guarding might be volunteers there will be extra costs. Are you going to let volunteers around the children who have not had a background check? Are you just going to give the volunteer a chair or are they going to have to have some training on school policy and proceedures? If there is any kind of uniform or tags noting the volunteer as a gun toter, well, those cost money, too. Since you have guns in a building there's a good chance insurance will be going up. It's little things like that that will eventually add up.


----------



## Oldcountryboy (Feb 23, 2008)

summerdaze said:


> What about doing away with the school's lunch program? I never thought it was the school's job to feed the kids anyway. Let them pack lunches. No school lunches mean no cafeteria workers. I'm imagining that would be at least 4 salaries (and maybe more in larger schools) eliminated right there. Use the savings from those personel plus whatever $$ are saved from the costs of food, equipment, etc to hire 1 or 2 guards instead.


You must hate kids! For some kids that's the only descent meal they get that day. Come weekends some kids don't have much to eat at all untill they go back to school the following Monday. And you want to deprive them of that opportunity. Shame on you!



JeffreyD said:


> Yes. Because millions of responsable gun owners never have a problem! What if, what if, what if my wife didn't have a gun when someone tried to rape her? What if that happened to you and you didn't have a weapon? Better safe then sorry.


Oh your wife could still have a weapon to defend herself, but it doesn't have to be a assult weapon that can fire dozens and dozens of ammo in a short amount of time. 



Darren said:


> *Adam Lanza did not have an assault rifle at Sandy Hook. This is a media lie that's been repeated so many times, the public believes the misdirection. Contrary to media lies, an assault rifle has never been used to kill at a school.*


Semi or Auto, they're still assult rifles!:bash:


----------



## Melissa (Apr 15, 2002)

I haven't read every post, but in response to the op, I say we start a new national lottery- call it the school defense fund and every penny of profit goes to pay an armed guard for every school building.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> So I can't be serious when you want to take more of my tax money to pay for these guards?
> 
> You forget that while the people doing the guarding might be volunteers there will be extra costs. Are you going to let volunteers around the children who have not had a background check? Are you just going to give the volunteer a chair or are they going to have to have some training on school policy and proceedures? If there is any kind of uniform or tags noting the volunteer as a gun toter, well, those cost money, too. Since you have guns in a building there's a good chance insurance will be going up. It's little things like that that will eventually add up.


The previous comments you made certainly weren't serious
Now you're talking about something totally different.

There would be MINIMAL costs involved, and it won't have to add ONE CENT to what you *already pay*

Anyone who has purchased a firearm from a dealer has already HAD a background check. Doing one won't cost extra, since they are done every day on millions of people.

You're simply fabricating excuses


----------



## Old Vet (Oct 15, 2006)

KnowOneSpecial said:


> So I can't be serious when you want to take more of my tax money to pay for these guards?
> 
> You forget that while the people doing the guarding might be volunteers there will be extra costs. Are you going to let volunteers around the children who have not had a background check? Are you just going to give the volunteer a chair or are they going to have to have some training on school policy and proceedures? If there is any kind of uniform or tags noting the volunteer as a gun toter, well, those cost money, too. Since you have guns in a building there's a good chance insurance will be going up. It's little things like that that will eventually add up.


I don't know about other states but in Arkansas everybody with a CCW is checked anytime they have contact with the police and on a 5 year basis they are checked through all agencies. Any thing on their record may cause them to loose the CCW. But that doesn't mean that one of them may go crazy and shoot a classroom full of children but the odds are against that.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

Oldcountryboy said:


> You must hate kids! For some kids that's the only descent meal they get that day. Come weekends some kids don't have much to eat at all untill they go back to school the following Monday. And you want to deprive them of that opportunity. Shame on you!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Are you saying that a pistol can't shoot as fast as an "assult" rifle?(even tho most have never seen a "real" "assult" rifle, and most cannot by one. I don't even know any stores that sell them)


----------



## Oldcountryboy (Feb 23, 2008)

You ever wonder how the children will feel having to go to a school with a high fence, Gestapo's greeting you at the gate, the doors. There gonna feel like they're in prison all the time, just so people can play with their assult weapons. 

The term Prison want be a scary word to them when they grow up, they'll feel like they've already grew up in one.


----------



## Melissa (Apr 15, 2002)

It is not going to be possible to remove "assault" weapons (or any other guns) from this country- have to look for other solutions.


----------



## KnowOneSpecial (Sep 12, 2010)

Bearfootfarm said:


> The previous comments you made certainly weren't serious
> Now you're talking about something totally different.
> 
> There would be MINIMAL costs involved, and it won't have to add ONE CENT to what you *already pay*
> ...


It's not ridiculous. 

I am a liscensed foster parent. I've had one of the most intenst background checks a person could have. They looked at our bank statements, 6 referrals, two set of fingerprints (one for FBI and the other for the State cops), had to have in depth physicals and our home checked out-even had to have a test done on our well water. When I signed upto be a substitute teacher I asked if they could use my foster parent background check to satisfy their needs. I was told they could not due to insurance liability and because any document can be faked and they have to run their own checks. 

I also know that we had to pay around $40 to have our foster parent background info checked. 

So yes, at least in our district they would need to have a new background check and yes, it will cost money.


----------



## Old Vet (Oct 15, 2006)

KnowOneSpecial said:


> It's not ridiculous.
> 
> I am a liscensed foster parent. I've had one of the most intenst background checks a person could have. They looked at our bank statements, 6 referrals, two set of fingerprints (one for FBI and the other for the State cops), had to have in depth physicals and our home checked out-even had to have a test done on our well water. When I signed upto be a substitute teacher I asked if they could use my foster parent background check to satisfy their needs. I was told they could not due to insurance liability and because any document can be faked and they have to run their own checks.
> 
> ...


Not at all I was checked out with the Dr that delivered me and all of my teachers and all of my friends when I was 21 and again at 30 years old. They went over all of my bank records and my credit score. All of this by the FBI to get a top secret clearance. They knew about everything else because they were proving it.


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

Old Vet said:


> Have you ever loaded a M1 Grand? Those clips go into the rifle and when empty they pop out. You must have them confused with stripper clips.[/QUOTE}
> 
> You're correct. I was thinking about stripper clips. Those obviously aren't.


----------



## InvalidID (Feb 18, 2011)

Oldcountryboy said:


> So who's to say that the next mass shooter isn't going to pick out a school that can't afford armed guards? So now your back to the same problem. Solution.....unsolved!
> 
> You typed: I have yet to read about a teacher killing students.
> 
> ...


 A few states already allow teachers to conceal carry at school. If you trust these people with your children already, why wouldn't you trust them with a gun?


----------



## InvalidID (Feb 18, 2011)

Oldcountryboy said:


> You ever wonder how the children will feel having to go to a school with a high fence, Gestapo's greeting you at the gate, the doors. There gonna feel like they're in prison all the time, just so people can play with their assult weapons.
> 
> The term Prison want be a scary word to them when they grow up, they'll feel like they've already grew up in one.


 I agree, but frankly they already have a lot of prison like things in schools don't they? My kids told me recently that when walking the halls they are expected to place their hands behind their backs and make 'tail feathers'. Wrists touching hands out.. Sounds a lot like being cuffed huh?

I think the answer is 2 fold. Less crazy drugs for the crazy people. More counseling and committing if needed for a first step. More letting teachers arm themselves if they want to for a second...


----------



## zito (Dec 21, 2006)

steff bugielski said:


> Bet your wife was not carrying an *assault rifle *or a clip with *100* rounds in it.
> My point.


Course not. Had she been, the lowlife would have slunk off back to under his rock, tail between legs, without ever even trying anything. Simply another case where having an unrestricted choice of defensive weapon keeps another innocent safe.


----------



## KnowOneSpecial (Sep 12, 2010)

Old Vet said:


> Not at all I was checked out with the Dr that delivered me and all of my teachers and all of my friends when I was 21 and again at 30 years old. They went over all of my bank records and my credit score. All of this by the FBI to get a top secret clearance. They knew about everything else because they were proving it.


You still would have had to get a new background to be a substitute teacher in our district.


----------



## Old Vet (Oct 15, 2006)

KnowOneSpecial said:


> You still would have had to get a new background to be a substitute teacher in our district.


I am ready to renew my CCW and it will be done on me again so what?


----------



## PistolPackinMom (Oct 20, 2012)

steff bugielski said:


> It will not stop someone who wants to kill. We know this but if it slows a killer down and he or she can be overtaken and one less person gets killed it will all be worth it.


Okay, you outright ADMIT that this will not stop someone who wants to kill. Yet, you still want to remove guns from the possession of millions of people who've done _NOTHING_ wrong? 

Consider how much time changing a magazine actually takes. SECONDS. How far can you run for cover in SECONDS? Enough to outrun a bullet? Are seconds enough to find impenetrable cover to keep you AND everyone else safe? You MIGHT have enough time to rush the bad guy, but what is your plan? Strangle him? Knock the gun out of his hands and hope you don't get hurt? Ask nicely?

Oh, here's an idea! How about "return fire, stop the threat and save lives."?Why is THAT not a viable way to overtake the bad guy so one less person gets killed? Why is THAT not worth it? _Why do you want to punish millions of law abiding citizens for the criminal actions of a *few* who already do not obey the laws?_


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

I read through this and like so many other threads, it jumps track and simply provokes each other.

Can all problems be solved? Do we really have all the answers? Do all questions have simple answers?

I am glad we have the right to own guns. A lot of you don't want guns. I can't understand that, so I guess you can't understand why I want guns.

If you have a simple gun and think an AR or an AK is over the top, then know once those are banned the gun controllers will go after the next gun on the list, until the second amendment has no place in the USA.

What do you think stops a bad person from busting down your door and having their way, terrorizing your home? I submit it is not fear of a policeman or going to jail. It is the fear that the person on the other side of the door has a gun.

Do you have any fear that something might disrupt social order in our country? Do you want to be the one without the means to protect your family?

The only thing I know that stops a bad person with a gun is a good person with a gun.

I just do not understand why anyone can rationally support gun control in America.


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

Oldcountryboy said:


> You ever wonder how the children will feel having to go to a school with a high fence, Gestapo's greeting you at the gate, the doors. There gonna feel like they're in prison all the time, just so people can play with their assult weapons.
> 
> The term Prison want be a scary word to them when they grow up, they'll feel like they've already grew up in one.


I know exactly how they will feel.

*They will feel alive!*


----------



## wes917 (Sep 26, 2011)

pmondo said:


> hear hear I for one hate paying school tax the parents made them let them pay for their kids schooling not us with out kids


We do pay for our childrens school. I pay for private school, because the schools I am forced to pay for are so bad. I wish I could get a refund on that tax, since I dont use the "service" either, and what is provided for my funds isn't adequate.


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

TheMartianChick said:


> So many people already have so little faith in the sense and sensibilities of teachers. What makes them believe that they will use good judgement with a weapon?


It's the unions people distrust, not the teachers.


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

KnowOneSpecial said:


> So I can't be serious when you want to take more of my tax money to pay for these guards?
> 
> You forget that while the people doing the guarding might be volunteers there will be extra costs. Are you going to let volunteers around the children who have not had a background check? Are you just going to give the volunteer a chair or are they going to have to have some training on school policy and proceedures? If there is any kind of uniform or tags noting the volunteer as a gun toter, well, those cost money, too. Since you have guns in a building there's a good chance insurance will be going up. It's little things like that that will eventually add up.


How much money is a child worth?
What's the top dollar we should spend to protect them?


----------



## barn-apart (Feb 10, 2005)

PistolPackinMom said:


> Okay, you outright ADMIT that this will not stop someone who wants to kill. Yet, you still want to remove guns from the possession of millions of people who've done _NOTHING_ wrong?
> 
> Consider how much time changing a magazine actually takes. SECONDS. How far can you run for cover in SECONDS? Enough to outrun a bullet? Are seconds enough to find impenetrable cover to keep you AND everyone else safe? You MIGHT have enough time to rush the bad guy, but what is your plan? Strangle him? Knock the gun out of his hands and hope you don't get hurt? Ask nicely?
> 
> Oh, here's an idea! How about "return fire, stop the threat and save lives."?Why is THAT not a viable way to overtake the bad guy so one less person gets killed? Why is THAT not worth it? _Why do you want to punish millions of law abiding citizens for the criminal actions of a *few* who already do not obey the laws?_



Well stated . I agree.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Cornhusker said:


> How much money is a child worth?
> What's the top dollar we should spend to protect them?


Kids ain't worth too much to me, but for some reason their mothers seem to like them. It takes about ten minutes or so to make one, at minimum wage that figures out about 80 cents. I would think a dollar or so should be more than sufficient to protect one.eep:


----------



## Marshloft (Mar 24, 2008)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Kids ain't worth too much to me, but for some reason their mothers seem to like them. It takes about ten minutes or so to make one, at minimum wage that figures out about 80 cents. *I would think a dollar or so should be more than sufficient to protect one.*eep:


 
I see today that Obama has already spent 4 million on this years holiday vacation. He could have donated that money for the protection of 4 million kiddos.
Just sayin


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

Marshloft said:


> I see today that Obama has already spent 4 million on this years holiday vacation. He could have donated that money for the protection of 4 million kiddos.
> Just sayin


Obama doesn't care about the children, he proves that every day
He's just a thug and hypocrite out to disarm the general public


----------



## Marshloft (Mar 24, 2008)

Cornhusker said:


> Obama doesn't care about the children, he proves that every day
> He's just a thug and hypocrite out to disarm the general public


 
I know that, and you know that.
Doesn't help.


----------



## KnowOneSpecial (Sep 12, 2010)

Cornhusker said:


> How much money is a child worth?
> What's the top dollar we should spend to protect them?


Well our district just had a bond issue and about 1/3rd of the folks thought that $17 per $150,000 of assessed value was too much to spend on their education.


----------



## Old Vet (Oct 15, 2006)

KnowOneSpecial said:


> Well our district just had a bond issue and about 1/3rd of the folks thought that $17 per $150,000 of assessed value was too much to spend on their education.


In Arkansas the money that the federal government gives to schools are goint to schools thet don't have a milage high enough and taken away from those that do.That sounds about right pay for schools and the federal government and state government are against that.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

KnowOneSpecial said:


> Well our district just had a bond issue and about 1/3rd of the folks thought that $17 per $150,000 of assessed value was too much to spend on their education.


Is that all or in addition to what they are already spending? In my area we are already spending a small fortune, a bit over 550 on my place which the assessor "claims"is worth 140k.


----------



## Oldcountryboy (Feb 23, 2008)

InvalidID said:


> A few states already allow teachers to conceal carry at school. If you trust these people with your children already, why wouldn't you trust them with a gun?


I don't always trust these people with my children. How many times in the past few years have I seen on the news telling about teachers having sex with a child at school? So how you gonna know just which teacher you should trust with a gun? You wont! 



HDRider said:


> .
> 
> If you have a simple gun and think an AR or an AK is over the top, then know once those are banned the gun controllers will go after the next gun on the list, until the second amendment has no place in the USA.
> 
> ...


If we don't control the assult weapons, they will go after all the guns! And you don't need something that shoot can shoot 50 to a 100 rounds of ammo in less then a minute to protect yourself. By having the right to carry these types of weapons only gives the criminal the right to use these kinds of weapons against you and people in malls, school grounds, stadiums, or whereever there's a huge crowd. These types of weapons should have never been on the market to begin with.


----------



## FeralFemale (Apr 10, 2006)

Progs talk talk talk about how they care about children, and will waste tons of money for any program that enhances their marxist agenda (bonus points if the program involves condoms!) but, heaven forbid, they pay a few extra bucks to protect our children more than the security in just about any business or govt building.


----------



## Old Vet (Oct 15, 2006)

Oldcountryboy said:


> I don't always trust these people with my children. How many times in the past few years have I seen on the news telling about teachers having sex with a child at school? So how you gonna know just which teacher you should trust with a gun? You wont!
> 
> 
> 
> If we don't control the assult weapons, they will go after all the guns! And you don't need something that shoot can shoot 50 to a 100 rounds of ammo in less then a minute to protect yourself. By having the right to carry these types of weapons only gives the criminal the right to use these kinds of weapons against you and people in malls, school grounds, stadiums, or whereever there's a huge crowd. These types of weapons should have never been on the market to begin with.


That all depends on who you are defending you self from? From the normal burglar no but if you are defending your self from a platoon that has a automatic weapon it would be nice to have. That is why we have the second amendment to be able to protect us from the government.


----------



## InvalidID (Feb 18, 2011)

Oldcountryboy said:


> I don't always trust these people with my children. How many times in the past few years have I seen on the news telling about teachers having sex with a child at school? So how you gonna know just which teacher you should trust with a gun? You wont! .


 If we're going to live in fear like that maybe we should close down all the schools and everyone can home school. It's the only time you'll ever be sure your kids are with someone you trust right?


----------



## Oldcountryboy (Feb 23, 2008)

Old Vet said:


> That all depends on who you are defending you self from? From the normal burglar no but if you are defending your self from a platoon that has a automatic weapon it would be nice to have. That is why we have the second amendment to be able to protect us from the government.


How many times in the last 230 something years have we had to protect ourselves from the government? We are no match against the government. They have platoons with armored tanks, missiles, bunker bombs, warplanes, and most of all, if they cant do it with that, they can use germ warfare and nuclear bombs against us. And they have plans for that if they have to use them. Your gonna look purty stupid laying thier dead, burnt to a crisp, with your bushmaster or AR clutched in your hands and have never fired one shot.


----------



## Old Vet (Oct 15, 2006)

Oldcountryboy said:


> How many times in the last 230 something years have we had to protect ourselves from the government? We are no match against the government. They have platoons with armored tanks, missiles, bunker bombs, warplanes, and most of all, if they cant do it with that, they can use germ warfare and nuclear bombs against us. And they have plans for that if they have to use them. Your gonna look purty stupid laying thier dead, burnt to a crisp, with your bushmaster or AR clutched in your hands and have never fired one shot.


So what do you plan on doing just guve up? Let them do what ever and not complain. I may be found dead but not with a gun that has not been fired. They can nuke all of us but where would they live? The same thing for any other weapon of mass distrudtion. I do not think that the military as a whole will go along with the government but some will but I doubt that they have access to any of those weapons. If they do then turn about is fair. I may not have a nuke but I can whip up some chemical or biological weapons with a little help and deliver them just about anywhere in the US.


----------

