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.
FWIW I am for ALLOWING teachers and staff to be armed...not MAKING them, nor hiring any type of TSA to molest and harass the kids....simply ALLOW teachers to be armed should they choose and be able to pass a safety class as determined by EACH district...NOT THE FEDS.
We don't need any more bureaucracy...just less restrictions preventing people from protecting themselves.
ALLOWING teachers and staff puts a means of resistance right where it needs to be and at the expense of the individual, not the public.
I think we should get rid of the TSA too, but not the Air Marshalls...no reports of THEM violating anyones rights.
If the supposed hijackers on 911 had a plane with dozens of armed passengers...well, box cutters would have been pretty laughable.
Why type of person thinks more guns in schools in the answer?
Ultimately - the type of person who hasn't thought it through.
A. The type of person who forgets more security guards in each school ("outside every classroom" as one talk show host put it) = more money paid to security guards = much higher taxes.
B. The type of person who feels forcing guns on teachers/principals and regular citizens who don't want them (hence why they don't already carry them..) isn't a violation of those peoples rights of safety and feeling safe.
C. The type of person who falls victim to the superman mentality, and believes just because you have a gun, means you're not going to fall victim to nerves, lose courage, or otherwise become be completely ineffective once the bullets actually begin flying..
D. The type of person who doesn't realize columbine had armed security guards - and were completely ineffective.
Interesting, haven't used any of those arguments because they *are* poor arguments.
First and foremost, school-shootings are incredibly rare, random shootings less so, but still remarkably rare events. Since these types of shootings overwhelmingly take place in gun-free zones, you're better off just removing the "gun-free" restriction and allowing those faculty who choose to carry, to do so. You're right that forcing people to carry firearms isn't a solution. But people who carry? Are interested in carrying? They're the ones who actually care about doing so--they get range time, train with their firearm, and are generally not morons. (Texas found that people with CPLs in their states were remarkably less felony prone).
If we have to do something, that'd be the solution. Everything else is too expensive (armed guards) or idiotic (turning schools into prisons).
Quote:
One person put it - "The only thing that's going to stop a bad guy with a gun, is a good guy with a gun" - Are you serious? Wouldn't getting rid of guns more effectively solve this statement, rather than escalation and putting MORE guys (both good and bad) with guns, out there?
You can't magically remove a bad guy with a gun from a scenario. If the person is an active shooter, the only means to stop him is to shoot him.
If we overnight enforced a firearm ban and law-abiding citizens, being law-abiding citizens--turned in their firearms, you now have hundreds of thousands of criminals with access to firearms they own with absolutely zero armed victims. To say the least, your violent crime rate is going to sky-rocket.
And we can bring up any number of European countries with strict gun-control laws and high levels of violent crime. A person without a means to protect themselves is a victim, always.
Quote:
I've been going nuts over the past few days listening to talk radio, and hearing how everything else is the problem (ie, the US isn't religious enough, "crazy" people need to be committed and monitored better, violent video games are the problem, etc etc etc) - That's all erroneous, based on ignorance (particularly the mental health aspect), and speculation. You know what's not solely speculation? That guns were used to murder too many people in the USA over the past few decades..
Violent crimes and homicides have been dropping for decades too regardless of firearm laws. The 1994 assault weapon ban did absolutely nothing (crime dropped--following the trend that had already been present).
Most homicides are conducted with handguns anyway, so AWBs won't do anything to that effect.
Quote:
I really wish the pro-gun people would realize it's not owning high powered weapons that makes them men - it's sucking it up when you have to, and doing what's best for everyone else, when you completely don't want to.
This is one of those times guys...
And for all the women out there who disagree with you? That's terribly sexist of you.
Quote:
Listening now to one elected official saying we need:
A. Armed retired police/military members/teachers who volunteer to offer to stand atleast 2 days a week at schools.
B. Multiple black and white video cameras throughout schools, with each teacher having a panic button tied to "modern day smart phones" , in case something happens..
Seriously!?!!
Rather than thinking of how to PREVENT shootings all together, people are stomping their feet in the ground, hunkering down, and taking for granted that another shooting will occur - we just have to think of better ways to counter it.
We can't completely stop all crime. Why would you think that's possible?
Quote:
Wouldn't getting guns out of the hands of people who have no reason to own them, be the more effective counter?
Then the progun host ends enthusiastically with "Yeah, you're right, we need to do something to protect these babies.."
Apparently "protecting those babies" isn't as important as his ability to go home and shoot..
Kind of sickening...
This is the question, isn't it? How do we stop bad-guys from getting guns? There is another half of the sentence though: without preventing good guys from getting guns.
AWBs aren't the answer. Firearm bans aren't the answer (they won't do anything, obviously).
If your argument is no person needs a 30-rd magazine and a black-gun, then you've lost focus. Nobody needs a 600hp engine, but we have the freedom to buy and enjoy them.
Why type of person thinks more guns in schools in the answer?
Ultimately - the type of person who hasn't thought it through.
A. The type of person who forgets more security guards in each school ("outside every classroom" as one talk show host put it) = more money paid to security guards = much higher taxes.
B. The type of person who feels forcing guns on teachers/principals and regular citizens who don't want them (hence why they don't already carry them..) isn't a violation of those peoples rights of safety and feeling safe.
C. The type of person who falls victim to the superman mentality, and believes just because you have a gun, means you're not going to fall victim to nerves, lose courage, or otherwise become be completely ineffective once the bullets actually begin flying..
D. The type of person who doesn't realize columbine had armed security guards - and were completely ineffective.
I mean, what's going on here? Are these irrational arguments really coming from rational adults?
One person put it - "The only thing that's going to stop a bad guy with a gun, is a good guy with a gun" - Are you serious? Wouldn't getting rid of guns more effectively solve this statement, rather than escalation and putting MORE guys (both good and bad) with guns, out there?
I've been going nuts over the past few days listening to talk radio, and hearing how everything else is the problem (ie, the US isn't religious enough, "crazy" people need to be committed and monitored better, violent video games are the problem, etc etc etc) - That's all erroneous, based on ignorance (particularly the mental health aspect), and speculation. You know what's not solely speculation? That guns were used to murder too many people in the USA over the past few decades..
I really wish the pro-gun people would realize it's not owning high powered weapons that makes them men - it's sucking it up when you have to, and doing what's best for everyone else, when you completely don't want to.
This is one of those times guys...
Edit -
Listening now to one elected official saying we need:
A. Armed retired police/military members/teachers who volunteer to offer to stand atleast 2 days a week at schools.
B. Multiple black and white video cameras throughout schools, with each teacher having a panic button tied to "modern day smart phones" , in case something happens..
Seriously!?!!
Rather than thinking of how to PREVENT shootings all together, people are stomping their feet in the ground, hunkering down, and taking for granted that another shooting will occur - we just have to think of better ways to counter it.
Wouldn't getting guns out of the hands of people who have no reason to own them, be the more effective counter?
Then the progun host ends enthusiastically with "Yeah, you're right, we need to do something to protect these babies.."
Apparently "protecting those babies" isn't as important as his ability to go home and shoot..
Kind of sickening...
EDIT EDIT -
Now one host is chiding the president asking why he sends his kids to school with armed security guards, if he didn't believe in guns. Are you KIDDING!?!!!
You should know that I am a gun owner, a conservative, and a believer in how guns can SAVE lives.
That being said, I feel that there should not be any guns in existence, ever.
I own a gun so I can protect myself, my family and my property should there ever be a threat to any of those things.
Criminals who want to commit mass murder will find a way to do it whether they use guns or not. Law-abiding citizens, including teachers, will not use a gun for harm to anyone who is not an obvious threat.
The problem with armed guards at a school is that you never know where the guards will be. Suppose a school has four armed guards, and 2,000 students. I went to a high school with almost 2,000 students so I know how large the building has to be, for that many students. If someone starts shooting, there is going to be a certain lag time between when the shooter begins shooting, and when the nearest guard recognizes that shooting is happening. Then the guard has to run to the location of the shooting, which may not be immediately evident. Even if the nearest guard is on the scene in one minute's time, a lot of devastation can happen in one minute. Even if it only took 30 seconds, lots of people can be killed! However, if the teacher can blow the murderer away almost immediately, many lives can be saved. Even if the murderer immediately targets the teacher, there will be nearby teachers in adjacent classrooms who could get there with their weapons much faster than an armed guard, unless the guard just happened to be in proximity to the shooter. (And no shooter would be so dumb as to initiate an attack when the armed guard is nearby!)
Nobody would force guns on teachers - it would be a voluntary thing.
I agree with you that prevention of such massacres is the best thing, even better than arming teachers so they can take down an assassin. There is exactly ONE thing that will prevent such massacres, and that is for prospective assassins to be convinced that they have a Higher Power to whom they will have to answer for all of what they did in their lives. These guys blow multiple people away and then they blow themselves away, figuring that they merely "end it all" by ending their lives. If they were to believe instead that they would suffer eternal punishment in Hell for gunning down innocent people, they'd be much less likely to commit the mass murder.
The only way to get people convinced that there is a Higher Power (God) to whom all people will answer for their actions is to PUT RELIGION BACK INTO OUR CULTURE. We have taken God out of everything and then we wonder why this country is going to hell. These assassins believe that they are the highest authority effective in their own lives... they "own" other people's lives by taking them, and then they "own" their own lives by committing suicide in the end. Let's take a look back 100 years or so, when Christianity (in its various forms) was practically the law of the land due to how closely the American public adhered to its tenets, and see how many random mass murders were committed.
If you are not in favor of re-indoctrinating America with Christian religion, then you have to accept the fact that this stuff is going to continue. People without God will not have any solid foundation upon which to base their feeling of self-worth, and as such will never be sure of their self-worth. People who aren't sure of their self-worth will not be anywhere near as likely to feel that they're better than to stoop to committing heinous crimes than people who really are sure of their self-worth.
If you don't favor getting America back to its Christian roots (98% of the Founding Fathers were Christian), but you still think there's a way to prevent these massacres from happening without incurring oppressive expense to the taxpayers, I would like to hear about what it is... because I cannot conceive of it. I can conceive of plenty of preventive measures that WOULD incur significant expense (such as every school having a full body scanner, like they have at the airport security gate, at every door leading into the building from the outside)... but I can't come up with anything that wouldn't be terribly expensive in terms of money and time.
I ask you this. Why does the President have to send his children to school, under the protection of armed guards? Why does the President go everywhere under the protection of armed guards? Why do ex-Presidents get lifetime armed guard coverage through the Secret Service?
I am a living example of how guns can save people. My dad had to shoot an armed intruder into our house when I was 4 years old. If he didn't have a gun, there's no telling what would've happened to me or the other people in my family.
I would LOVE to see these massacres prevented so that people don't have to debate whether or not to put guns in the hands of teachers. There's nothing better than prevention. The only problem is that the American voting public has gotten to the point where the majority would not accept, nor vote for, the only things that can prevent this stuff.
You can't prevent it by "mental health counseling" any more than my 15-year-old cousin has been prevented from trying to kill himself despite numerous stints in mental hospitals and years of counseling. You can't prevent it by disarming the public - criminals will always find ways to get guns if they really want them. This has been proven time and time again. (Check out England, a country with a comprehensive handgun ban. If that prevented criminals from getting, and using, guns... England's yearly handgun homicide count should be zero. However, it is not. This information is readily available online.
You can't prevent it by teaching people that it's bad. People often seek to do bad things just to get attention. Babies learn from an early age that they can act out and get attention from doing so. The media gives these shooters the attention they've always craved, even if they're not alive to enjoy it... some people just want to be remembered. Most people who die leave little recognition behind, apart from the granite stones marking the places where their decomposing bodies lay. But don't we all know the name "Adam Lanza" now?
I would REALLY like to hear how we can prevent these massacres from happening, without incurring oppressive expense to the public, and without re-introducing Christianity into American culture the way it was for approximately the first 170 years of America's history.
Why type of person thinks more guns in schools in the answer?
A logical rational-minded person who knows number of guns isn't the threat but rather in whose hands they are in.
Ultimately - the type of person who hasn't thought it through.
A. The type of person who forgets more security guards in each school ("outside every classroom" as one talk show host put it) = more money paid to security guards = much higher taxes.
B. The type of person who feels forcing guns on teachers/principals and regular citizens who don't want them (hence why they don't already carry them..) isn't a violation of those peoples rights of safety and feeling safe.
C. The type of person who falls victim to the superman mentality, and believes just because you have a gun, means you're not going to fall victim to nerves, lose courage, or otherwise become be completely ineffective once the bullets actually begin flying..
D. The type of person who doesn't realize columbine had armed security guards - and were completely ineffective.
Straw men arguments. Few are proposing requiring teachers to carry but allowing qualified teachers who want to to carry. What price do we put on protecting our children. Do you realize how much it costs to have fire alarm systems and sprinklers in every school? Nobody said a good guy with a gun can prevent bad things from ever happening but they might prevent some and abbreviate others. I guess if a good guy stops a shooter after he's shot ten people that he was worthless and might as well have let the shooter shoot 30?
How do you know the Columbine guards didn't help to speed up the police response and provide valuable initial intelligence to keep this tragedy at 12 not 32? In any event, it didn't hurt. The guards didn't get overpowered and have their guns taken or get crazed and go on their own spree like the paranoid imagine/
I mean, what's going on here? Are these irrational arguments really coming from rational adults?
One person put it - "The only thing that's going to stop a bad guy with a gun, is a good guy with a gun" - Are you serious? Wouldn't getting rid of guns more effectively solve this statement, rather than escalation and putting MORE guys (both good and bad) with guns, out there?
Getting rid of ALL guns isn't possible. It's like wishing there was no crime and then we wouldn't have to have police departments. Note that mass shootings actually occurred more frequently during the years assault weapons were banned than the years they weren't.
The only way to get people convinced that there is a Higher Power (God) to whom all people will answer for their actions is to PUT RELIGION BACK INTO OUR CULTURE. We have taken God out of everything and then we wonder why this country is going to hell.
The foundation of your premise (that the country is going to hell) is flawed.
Notwithstanding these high profile (but still very rare) events, virtually every societal metric is at, or near, all time bests.
The murder rate, violent crime, non-violent crime, STD infections, teenage pregnancy, highschool dropout, you name it, all are at record lows. Ergo, your thesis is completely false. Seems the more "godless" we get, the better off we are.
You were statistically more likely to be murdered in 1960 than 2010.
I don't think it's irrational, just an idea. I don't think it would work though. Also you never really know who is going to snap and go on a murdering spree, whether they own a weapon or not.
[] FEAR: Fear of guns is not resolved by “controlling them” out of the hands of law abiding people. “Scary guns” are not the problem - “Scary people” are.
[] GUNS: “Gun violence” is not the problem. Predators are the problem, armed or not. The only beneficiaries of disarmament - even partial - are the predators, not their victims.
[] TOLERANCE: Tolerance of predators is unmerciful to their next victim. A “civilized” society should be intolerant of predators, not of the tools used to defend against them. When a society tolerates predators, self defense becomes a more pressing matter.
[] NEED: No one needs an “assault weapon” - or any weapon - until under attack.
Then one needs and wants as much firepower as one can muster to stop that attack.
It is always better to have a weapon and not need it, than to need a weapon and not have it.
[] RESPONSIBILITY: Those who are responsible for their own defense, have the right to bear arms in their defense. Those who are the responsibility of others (i.e. minors, incapacitated, etc), do not have the right to bear arms. But their guardians do - and SHOULD bear arms in their defense.
You are ultimately responsible for your own self defense. You can't expect the government to protect you. You can't sue them for failure to protect. And if you prefer to be disarmed, no one will stop you. However, if you do not wish to be a victim of those who are stronger, more violent, ruthless, and predatory, having weaponry is advisable (masters of unarmed combat excepted). As to noise suppressors, bayonets, bipods, automatic fire, barrel length, calibre, magazine size, appearance, and styling, that should be up to the owner, not the servant government, to decide.
Instead of new legislation, let us repeal all the ineffective and counterproductive gun control laws on the books.
Lets not change the topic, by turning this into "well people can just use blahblahblah instead" - as:
1. of course, and
2. that's nothing but distraction.
Guns are efficient, and are the current topic due to recent headlines.
What's the point of mentioning they're already banned on school premises? That addresses nothing..
That's like saying "You do realize theres no sun when you're inside the building, right? I don't see how you got skin cancer at all.."
The point is to keep children from getting killed, not just from getting shot. Hence my point, banning guns won't keep children from getting killed.
The point of mentioning they're already banned in schools is to show just how effective gun laws are. The fact that this has to be explained to you makes it clear that you have no business calling anyone else irrational.
The point is to keep children from getting killed, not just from getting shot. Hence my point, banning guns won't keep children from getting killed.
The point of mentioning they're already banned in schools is to show just how effective gun laws are. The fact that this has to be explained to you makes it clear that you have no business calling anyone else irrational.
The foundation of your premise (that the country is going to hell) is flawed.
I'd love to see exactly why you feel this way, given that every point you just made is provably wrong.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DentalFloss
Notwithstanding these high profile (but still very rare) events, virtually every societal metric is at, or near, all time bests.
Let's talk about societal metrics, below...
Quote:
Originally Posted by DentalFloss
The murder rate, violent crime, non-violent crime, STD infections, teenage pregnancy, highschool dropout, you name it, all are at record lows. Ergo, your thesis is completely false. Seems the more "godless" we get, the better off we are.
You were statistically more likely to be murdered in 1960 than 2010.
Not according to my statistics, bud. The following site has graphs from the Bureau of Justice Statistics dealing with violent crime rate and nonviolent crime rate, with each broken down into smaller types of crime, from 1960 to the present.
Overall STD rates since 1966, and AIDS rates since 1981 (scroll down to Dec. 11, 2006, which is about 1/3 of the way down the article... and read that entire section of text, paying particular attention to the conclusions): Kruse Kronicle: Social Indicators (Series)
When talking about teenage pregnancy rate, you can't really compare "nowadays" to "back in the day" because "back in the day", many teenage women were married when they got pregnant. That was commonplace. Instead, the best thing to do is to compare the out-of-wedlock pregnancy rate:
Now, while you may argue that high school graduation RATES are improving, there is another variable in this equation for which those charts cannot account. That is, the amount of actual education that people got, per year, back in the day. I submit the following 8th grade graduation test from West Virginia schools in 1931, which I guarantee most college graduates in West Virginia could not pass today:
Game, set, and match to me. Notice how, in many of the charts that go back to the 1940's, it becomes obvious that the downward trend began in the 1950's. That's also when God was taken out of public schools (thank you, Madalyn Murray O'Hair - is it hot enough for ya down there?).
I will say it again, for the record, given that the statistics prove it and this has now been put on public display for anyone who wishes to view it. AMERICA IS GOING TO HELL BECAUSE WE TOOK GOD OUT OF EVERYTHING.
Restoration of our former religious basis is the only cost-effective way to prevent all of these aforementioned social ills, including mass murder, which are today at rates many times higher than they were BEFORE God was systematically removed from everything. (And it is indeed the most PLEASANT way to avert future disasters! Who wants to be subject to standing in lines awaiting a full body scan in an airport machine EVERY TIME HE ENTERS A PUBLIC BUILDING WHERE LOTS OF PEOPLE GATHER?! Sheesh! Nobody likes that even one time at an airport! Can you imagine having to deal with it several times a day, every day?)
Last edited by RomaniGypsy; 12-25-2012 at 01:25 PM..
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.
