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.
Here's one especially for the Second Amendment, Part Two fetishists who think the only wing nuts in Hollywood are limousine liberals. Clint Eastwood has company.
Partial quote:
"In a new interview with the U.K. edition of GQ, Vaughn expressed his undying support of the Second Amendment and the right of all Americans to carry guns wherever they please, including in schools. 'You think the politicians that run my country and your country don't have guns in the schools their kids go to? They do,' Vaughn said. 'And we should be allowed the same rights. Banning guns is like banning forks in an attempt to stop making people fat. Taking away guns, taking away drugs, the booze, it won't rid the world of criminality.'
He added:
'It's well known that the greatest defense against an intruder is the sound of a gun hammer being pulled back. All these gun shootings that have gone down in America since 1950, only one or maybe two have happened in non-gun-free zones.'"
Full of facts, ain't'cha, Vince! Particularly that last sentence, what a knee-slapper.
For the life of me, I cannot understand why some people have such a hard time understanding we need to protect our children from madmen who would do such a thing as shoot up a school. Firearms could be placed in the hands of certain individuals in a school and no one would ever know. We don't need roving bands of security guards armed to the teeth. I'm not sure anyone is actually proposing that. If someone comes along and offers a viable alternative that won't cost millions of dollars to implement, I'm all ears. Until that time I think it is perfectly reasonable to be at least minimally prepared should another shooter show up at a school. An armed teacher or security guard may not be able to stop the shooter, but at least the possibility is there where it has not been in the past.
As far as the quote about forks, it is a bit played out. And a little childish. But, the fact remains that there needs to be something in place to minimize the loss of life when it happens again.
Well.... It is true that most mass shootings have happened in so called "gun free zones". The criminals know they will be able to inflict their sick carnage without being challenged.
Look at those idiots that were making an attempt to kill at the "draw Mohammed cartoon contest" They were stopped cold in the parking lot by a trained guard.
Imagine having such a trained person at a school. The trouble is it is impractical to hire a guard like that just in case but if a school has one there is a good chance that a terrorist idiot would think twice about attacking and sadly would move on to another place that didn't have a guard.
The same affect is seen when a burglar eyes 2 houses. Does he break into the one with the security system and barking dog or does he steal from the one without these precautions.
Is this what the world has come to?
There is much evil out there and we need to protect ourselves and the live of the innocent. Evil people will always prey on the innocent that cannot fight back. A good defense works like a locked door or a sealed airplane cockpit door but these measures can only go so far and sometimes you need a good offense to stop evil in its tracks.
As far as I'm concerned, if you can handle a gun responsibly, you can take it wherever you want.
THIS.
This is the larger issue. If you can handle a gun responsibly.
How do we, as a society, determine whether or not people can do this? I'm in complete agreement with you regarding persons who can responsibly handle guns carrying them wherever they want.
Provided they are of sound mind. That's another thing. How do we know?
I often hear staunch gun advocates (I'm not anti-gun, I'm just not sure what I think of being entirely pro gun without any sort of restrictions at all) ramble on about gun rights, and America, and the right to bear arms.
What I do not hear people talking about is how to ensure that we aren't inadvertently, as a society here in the US (not sure about other countries with similar gun laws) arming people who are just as dangerous as "criminals."
I put "criminals" in quotation marks because all people who have committed a crime were once people who'd never committed one at all.
So, how do we remedy this situation? Do we require that people submit psychiatric records? Medical records? Proof that they've passed stringent gun safety courses?
Adding too many restrictions to gun ownership might run counter to the rights afforded by the Constitution, but maybe these stringent requirements SHOULD be in place for people who want to carry outside their own homes.
Just a thought.
__________________
When in doubt, check it out: FAQ
^^^ I agree with that ^^^ and there IS a problem. Right now I am working in a mental hospital, and on daily basis we treat people with psychosis d/o, bipolar, hallucinating, hearing voices that tell them to kill themselves or others, deeply depressed, suicidal who want to go on shooting spree, you name it - and most admit that they do have gun or several weapons at home...
They want to take that gun, and they want to kill, because the voices are telling them to do so...
This is the larger issue. If you can handle a gun responsibly.
How do we, as a society, determine whether or not people can do this? I'm in complete agreement with you regarding persons who can responsibly handle guns carrying them wherever they want.
Provided they are of sound mind. That's another thing. How do we know?
I often hear staunch gun advocates (I'm not anti-gun, I'm just not sure what I think of being entirely pro gun without any sort of restrictions at all) ramble on about gun rights, and America, and the right to bear arms.
What I do not hear people talking about is how to ensure that we aren't inadvertently, as a society here in the US (not sure about other countries with similar gun laws) arming people who are just as dangerous as "criminals."
I put "criminals" in quotation marks because all people who have committed a crime were once people who'd never committed one at all.
So, how do we remedy this situation? Do we require that people submit psychiatric records? Medical records? Proof that they've passed stringent gun safety courses?
Adding too many restrictions to gun ownership might run counter to the rights afforded by the Constitution, but maybe these stringent requirements SHOULD be in place for people who want to carry outside their own homes.
Just a thought.
I am in favor of implementing New Zealand's procedures for gun control here. They are VERY strict. They also haven't had a mass shooting since the early 90s, and only about 11 people are killed by guns there each year; population 4.4 million.
It takes approximately 6 months to be able to buy a gun there. you MUST join the gun club and learn how to shoot first and past safety tests (which have to be renewed I believe), you must submit to an in home evaluation and three friends and/or family members are interviewed privately to vouch for your sanity and high level of responsibility. You can't have a mental disorder or have been convicted of a felony. Guns can only be bought/sold through licensed dealers. People (Americans) usually have a big problem with this part, but all guns in the home must be kept locked in a gun safe, all guns in transport must locked in a case in your car. If your gun is stolen or you break any of those rules, you never own a gun again. Period.
Honestly, unless you have a criminal record or a mental disorder, there is no reason to be against gun regulations, because if you are responsible and mentally sound, they will have zero effect on you, except for the amount of time it takes to get licensed. But longer licensing times weed out angry people who buy them on a whim.
We had guns at my school .... and that was in the UK
Okay, we had compulsory cadets from age 14. Anyway, the school had an indoor range and we were taught safe handling of weapons, how to clean them and how to shoot. We were required to qualify at the range every year. I still have my marksman's badge from that time.
On field days, I quite enjoyed prowling around the moorland in various section formations armed with my Lee Enfield 303. The more so when we came upon the occasional startled hiker
Anyway - and more seriously - in a society where guns are a fact and a reality irrespective of the politics around the gun debate, it behoves us to do our best to ensure that kids learn about the responsible use of weapons, about how to handle them safely and about the law as it applies to them. And High School is probably the best place to teach them.
Well.... It is true that most mass shootings have happened in so called "gun free zones". The criminals know they will be able to inflict their sick carnage without being challenged.
Look at those idiots that were making an attempt to kill at the "draw Mohammed cartoon contest" They were stopped cold in the parking lot by a trained guard.
Imagine having such a trained person at a school. The trouble is it is impractical to hire a guard like that just in case but if a school has one there is a good chance that a terrorist idiot would think twice about attacking and sadly would move on to another place that didn't have a guard.
The same affect is seen when a burglar eyes 2 houses. Does he break into the one with the security system and barking dog or does he steal from the one without these precautions.
Is this what the world has come to?
There is much evil out there and we need to protect ourselves and the live of the innocent. Evil people will always prey on the innocent that cannot fight back. A good defense works like a locked door or a sealed airplane cockpit door but these measures can only go so far and sometimes you need a good offense to stop evil in its tracks.
It is the world we live in.
It wasn't because of the Columbine or Jihad that Los Angeles elementary and middle schools do and have always had in my memory a plain clothed police officer assigned, high schools sometimes have a squad of uniformed officers assigned. After one of the latest school attacks every LAPD officer makes a random appearance at the schools on his beat everyday to supplement LA Unified School police.
The number of firearm deaths on school and college campuses each year numbers in the dozens. (And, by the way, the yearly average has been steadily dropping over the last two decades, though people who foolishly get their 'information' from an assessment of how much 24/7 news-cycle coverage a subject gets think otherwise.)
In comparison, the number of people accidentally killed annually by firearms is in the high three-figures.
Now, I don't have a Ph.D in mathematics, but the above facts don't lead me to conclude that the answer to firearms deaths in schools is... "More guns!".
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.
Clint Eastwood has company.
