Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I'm a USMC vet. Qualified expert with the M1911a1. Yeah, that was a log time ago. I'm also a retired HS teacher.
I see LOTS of red flags with arming teachers.
Quote:
Is your blind hatred of the NRA and gun owners so strong that you would actually prefer more children are killed, rather that implementing a system that can reduce that number? Really??
More than likely I own more firearms than many "gun nuts" on this forum.
Thanks for posting your "credentials" but this isn't a d*#k measuring thread. Why not address the issue? Do you really believe that having armed individuals in a school wouldn't reduce the number of deaths?
are we going to militarize all schools with mental detectors at all entry doors?
Since the cause of school shootings is deviant mental states, yes, mental detectors would be a good idea if they existed.
On the other hand, Cruz, the Parkland shooter's mental deviance was well known long before his crime and we did nothing. So maybe the problem isn't whether AR-15s are legal or whether teachers are armed in schools, but the fact that a person can walk around freely with his unstable, violent propensities well known, and nothing is done about it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rstevens62
You do realize the AK47 is the most mass produced and widely used full auto on the planet...right? Its not much of a stretch to assume PLENTY are finding their way into the US, heck just look at how many drugs are brought in, and on a CONSISTENT basis!!!
Flea markets and private sales/trades of full autos is booming, despite the law on 1986 and newer.
Legally owned full auto weapons have been used in 3 murders in the US since 1934.
I am far more afraid of hands and feet which are the murder weapon used in ~600-800 murders per year, and almost everyone (except amputees) is armed with these weapons at all times, even infants and toddlers!
(And for fun, it is interesting to note that rifles, all rifles, even granny's old .22 she uses to scare possoms off the porchand not just the dreaded AR-15, are used in 250-300 murders per year, a lot less that the good old fashioned human fist.)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Troyfan
If we banned AR-15s we wouldn't have to worry about these less than ideal solutions. Banning is not perfect and not a stand alone solution. But it's the keystone to solving the problem.
AR-15s are not being used in these shooting because they possess some special effectiveness over other guns. They are used because they are trendy. If cans of gasoline were trendy, psychopaths would be tossing gasoline bombs through school windows.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Troyfan
AR-15s were used in Parkland, San Bernardino, Sutherland, Newton, Las Vegas and Aurora. How long does the list have to get?
See above. Making AR-15s illegal to prevent shootings is like making Flaming Hot Cheetos illegal to prevent type II diabetes.
Last edited by ABQConvict; 02-28-2018 at 12:04 PM..
Thanks for posting your "credentials" but this isn't a d*#k measuring thread. Why not address the issue? Do you really believe that having armed individuals in a school wouldn't reduce the number of deaths?
I am a firearms enthusiast (skeet shooter),college professor, and a Education Resource liason as part of my service in the American Chemical Society. I interact with all kinds of educators every day, from middle school to graduate students. I don't think that teachers are well suited for being armed security for many, many, many reasons. That being said, I think "Gun Free" regulations that prohibit staff that may have the security training from being part of a comprehensive plan are counterproductive.
Schools are incredibly "soft" targets. There is no anti-gun legislation magic bullet that will change this. A pragmatic approach is to evaluate the feasibility and cost of any security plan, consider the opportunity cost, and act strategically and logically rather than reactively and emotionally.
The second hit from that Google search is a Wikipedia article detailing out 51 incidents. Not two.
I understand that it doesn't fit in with your narrative, but having a little bit of intellectual honesty would help you out in your argument, regardless of how morally bankrupt that argument is.
TaxPhd, I have no "narrative" other than pursuit of TRUTH. I am ALWAYS open to correction if someone has evidence contrary to what I believe. You certainly don't know me well enough to be nonchalantly tossing out insults about me, like lacking "intellectual honesty" and that I use arguments that are "morally bankrupt." (And BTW, I get so tired of hearing those smug phrases so frequently I could vomit.)
Now, as to your accusation, when *I* googled, the second hit from google was a Wiki article that talked about 13 mass killings, only ONE of which was accomplished with knives. If you want to intelligently discuss an article you found with 51, I would be far more inclined to actually hear you if you treated me like a human being deserving of respect. Because even people who disagree with your position still deserve respect. A lack of respect for others leads to all kinds of ugliness in the world, you know?
What might the death toll had been if armed citizens neutralized the attackers at the start of the incident?
My guess would be at least the same if not higher, due to stray bullets killing innocents. I admit that is just my guess. If you have reliable data that you wish to respectfully share, I would read it.
How many kindergarten children in a classroom could a man with a knife kill? Who would stop him? The teacher, by wielding a stern look?
I'll agree that a kindergarten class is an easy target. But if you are going to continue promoting an opinion that knives are equally dangerous as guns, I cannot even take you seriously. You must surely know that is ludicrous and false. And remember, I am very fond of TRUTH in debates.
Every time one of these incidents occurs, and the internet is flooded with cries for more gun regulations, the question is always asked - What new piece of gun legislation would have prevented the incident from occurring? And the answer is always the same - no new legislation would have prevented it.
Again, I have a hard time taking you seriously when you say things like this. OF COURSE better gun control could prevent some (not all) of these mass shootings. Is the USA just so darned special that what has worked in much of the world simply cannot have an effect here? When gun-people say the problem is with mental health, do they really not believe that laws requiring better screening could reduce the number of guns getting into the hands of mentally ill? Is our country THAT hopeless? I do not believe so.
Again, I have a hard time taking you seriously when you say things like this. OF COURSE better gun control could prevent some (not all) of these mass shootings. Is the USA just so darned special that what has worked in much of the world simply cannot have an effect here? When gun-people say the problem is with mental health, do they really not believe that laws requiring better screening could reduce the number of guns getting into the hands of mentally ill? Is our country THAT hopeless? I do not believe so.
"Better gun control" that only results in keeping guns out of the hands of people who use them responsibly would not prevent any mass shootings.
You could completely stop all sales of firearms and the person who wants to kill a bunch of people in a school will find a way to do it.
Who will determine what mental illnesses should result in the loss of the right to own a firearm? If everyone who is treated for depression is deemed unfit, what do you think will happen to the number of people who seek treatment for depression? People who are depressed are at most risk to harm themselves, not others, and psychiatrists do recommend that families of such folks remove firearms from the home. That said, someone determined to commit suicide will find a way, even if he cannot get his hands on a gun.
The fact is that there is no way to predict which mentally ill people will be dangerous and which will not, until they actually do something dangerous or make clear threats to do so.
The recent incident in FL actually shows that we do not need new laws, we just need to do a better job with policies that are already in place.
.
TaxPhd, I have no "narrative" other than pursuit of TRUTH. I am ALWAYS open to correction if someone has evidence contrary to what I believe. You certainly don't know me well enough to be nonchalantly tossing out insults about me, like lacking "intellectual honesty" and that I use arguments that are "morally bankrupt." (And BTW, I get so tired of hearing those smug phrases so frequently I could vomit.)
You are correct that I don't know you, so I can only address what you have posted. Claiming that there were only two incidents in spite of the clear evidence to the contrary is evidence of lacking intellectual honesty. Sorry if that bothers you. . .
Now, as to your accusation, when *I* googled, the second hit from google was a Wiki article that talked about 13 mass killings, only ONE of which was accomplished with knives. If you want to intelligently discuss an article you found with 51, I would be far more inclined to actually hear you if you treated me like a human being deserving of respect. Because even people who disagree with your position still deserve respect. A lack of respect for others leads to all kinds of ugliness in the world, you know?
I'm sure it was easy to overlook, so here is the direct link:
My guess would be at least the same if not higher, due to stray bullets killing innocents. I admit that is just my guess. If you have reliable data that you wish to respectfully share, I would read it.
Firearms are used in self defense fairly frequently. The collateral damage from stray bullets is very low. But if you believe otherwise, by all means, provide the evidence.
I'll agree that a kindergarten class is an easy target. But if you are going to continue promoting an opinion that knives are equally dangerous as guns, I cannot even take you seriously. You must surely know that is ludicrous and false. And remember, I am very fond of TRUTH in debates.
I never said nor implied that knives were equally dangerous as guns. Trying to put words in my mouth is more evidence of intellectual dishonesty.
This is what I said:
Quote:
Plenty of mass killings have been perpetrated by using a knife or a pistol.
Again, I have a hard time taking you seriously when you say things like this. OF COURSE better gun control could prevent some (not all) of these mass shootings. Is the USA just so darned special that what has worked in much of the world simply cannot have an effect here? When gun-people say the problem is with mental health, do they really not believe that laws requiring better screening could reduce the number of guns getting into the hands of mentally ill? Is our country THAT hopeless? I do not believe so.
Your "OF COURSE" conclusion is not supported by evidence.
.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
