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.
Making stricter gun laws isn't going to stop people from getting guns. If criminals really want guns, they can have them. Chicago is a great example of a place with strict gun laws. probably has the strictest gun laws of any major city in the nation. Literally thousands of shootings a year. No one can argue that Chicago is any safer with their extremely strict gun laws. Strict gun laws does nothing but disarm everyone BUT criminals. There is something I have heard a few times before that I agree with 100% "when guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have them." Unfortunately, tragedies will happen regardless. There will always but insane nuts running around.
But that's like saying drug users will always use drugs, so let's add more drugs to the market. Don't clean your house, because it will just get dirty again.
Anyone know how many assault weapons are made and distributed onto the market daily? That would be interesting to see.
I'm very active in our kids' school. There is no way I'd imagine that the people that work there would be capable of holding off a mass killer with a gun or guns of their own. They'd be locked up in a cabinet, the guns would NOT be loaded, the bureaucracy of the school would probably limit who could use it, etc etc etc etc etc.......
Fewer guns on the market, starting today. I'm not talking about hunting rifles (I fully support people's wish to go hunting), not standard pistols (I fully support people's right to protect their home from invaders). Semi-automatic rifles and pistols? Why? Who needs them?
I'm sure you're a good person and mean well canudigit, but that part about women is pretty backwards and insulting, and not at all the issue.
With all due respect, I couldn't disagree more. The idea that "just" being a wife and mother is beneath a woman, that she must have a career and play with the big boys to justify her life's purpose...now that, to me, is insulting and degrading to women. I also do feel that when women were in the home instead of dumping their kids at day care centers the kids, as a rule, did much better.
I know it's an old fashioned notion by today's standards, but so is personal responsibility, doing unto others as you would have them do unto you, and putting your kids ahead of a mcmansion with a three car garage and tropical vacations. Kids learn early on where their parents' hearts are. I am not talking about women who have to work outside the home just to get by. I was raised by a single, widowed mother who had to work full-time. I'm talking about parents putting their own needs and desires ahead of their kids and then raising kids who have no moral or familial anchor. A working mom who loves her kids more than her job and social standing can still do a good job, it's the ones who have kids, invest nothing in them emotionally because they are too busy pursuing "the good life", and then blame "society" when the kid screws up.
--Most school employees would not be comfortable firing the kinds of weapons that could remotely compete with what these lunatics are carrying, or possibly any weapon at all. We can't assume that every teacher, secretary, etc. would be happy and willing to spray bullets at someone, even under the most horrific of circumstances. It is a lot to ask of someone who did not choose a career in law enforcement. I know, I know, it seems like it would be a piece of cake if protecting kids was involved, but I just don't think it's that simple.
.
A security school in texas is offering free CCW classes for teachers. They got a substantial number of responses.
If people are armed in the schools it provides two forms of deterrence. First it may discourage psychos from attaching schools. These people are generally cowards. Deciding to shoot yourself i the head is a cowardly act. Taking on an armed and trained individaul take courage.
To me the strongr deterrent effect is two bullets to the body. When Mr. bad guy is laying on the floor bleeding or dead, he will be deterred from shooting any more people.
I think it is funny that people think only policemen should have guns. Policemen are not vey well trained to deal with violence. Many security guards have better training. Further many are ex military and some have bene in compbat situations.
Unless we are going to station several policmen in every school, it will do not good for the kids to have policemen have guns. They will not be there.
It also seems funny to me that people think keeping concealed carry in schools illegal will somehow deter psychos from walking into a school to kill kids. It is illegal to kill kids and that does nothing to deter the psychos.
If some schools had a dozen or so armed and trained teachers, and some have a no gun policy, I woudl send my kids to the former schools without a second thought. It has always bothered me to send vulnerable children to a ocation where they are concentrated and thus a prime target for psychos, but where there is absolutely no security whatsoever. Police response time is going to be a minimum of 20 minutes by the time they arrive, deploy figure out what is going on and react. In 20 minutes, the entire school could be dead, regardless of whether Mr. Psycho is using a gun, knife, gasoline, broken bottle, whatever.
Frankly I think they shuold offer a pay bump for teachers who train, qualify and take some security/combat training and agree to double as emergency security for the school. Give them an extra $1000 a year plus pay for training. It owuld be good to teach them non-violent intervention as well (like Detroit threat Management techniques). Ten armed and trained individuals in each school and no shooting incident is going to last 20 minutes. For $10K a year in a school with a multi million dollar budget, that is cheap insurance. Frankly, I woudl rather have teachers trained in gun safety, and threat management than police officers protecting the children. There is an added advantage in that the teachers often will know who belongs in the school and who does not.
Will there be mistkes where someone gets hurt or killed by accident? Probably. There are mistake when we rely on police officers. It is going to happen. However I have no intention of sticking my head in the sand and saying we should have a society where psychos do not want to kill children, rather than doing something to protect our children.
Many people would love to know how to use a gun safely. As for competing with the lunatic's gun, it is not the size of your weapon, but how you use it.
With all due respect, I couldn't disagree more. The idea that "just" being a wife and mother is beneath a woman, that she must have a career and play with the big boys to justify her life's purpose...now that, to me, is insulting and degrading to women. I also do feel that when women were in the home instead of dumping their kids at day care centers the kids, as a rule, did much better.
I know it's an old fashioned notion by today's standards, but so is personal responsibility, doing unto others as you would have them do unto you, and putting your kids ahead of a mcmansion with a three car garage and tropical vacations. Kids learn early on where their parents' hearts are. I am not talking about women who have to work outside the home just to get by. I was raised by a single, widowed mother who had to work full-time. I'm talking about parents putting their own needs and desires ahead of their kids and then raising kids who have no moral or familial anchor. A working mom who loves her kids more than her job and social standing can still do a good job, it's the ones who have kids, invest nothing in them emotionally because they are too busy pursuing "the good life", and then blame "society" when the kid screws up.
I'll be sure to let my wife know you think so lowly of her. And the rest of the professional career women I know.
A security school in texas is offering free CCW classes for teachers. They got a substantial number of responses.
If people are armed in the schools it provides two forms of deterrence. First it may discourage psychos from attaching schools. These people are generally cowards. Deciding to shoot yourself i the head is a cowardly act. Taking on an armed and trained individaul take courage.
To me the strongr deterrent effect is two bullets to the body. When Mr. bad guy is laying on the floor bleeding or dead, he will be deterred from shooting any more people.
I think it is funny that people think only policemen should have guns. Policemen are not vey well trained to deal with violence. Many security guards have better training. Further many are ex military and some have bene in compbat situations.
Unless we are going to station several policmen in every school, it will do not good for the kids to have policemen have guns. They will not be there.
It also seems funny to me that people think keeping concealed carry in schools illegal will somehow deter psychos from walking into a school to kill kids. It is illegal to kill kids and that does nothing to deter the psychos.
If some schools had a dozen or so armed and trained teachers, and some have a no gun policy, I woudl send my kids to the former schools without a second thought. It has always bothered me to send vulnerable children to a ocation where they are concentrated and thus a prime target for psychos, but where there is absolutely no security whatsoever. Police response time is going to be a minimum of 20 minutes by the time they arrive, deploy figure out what is going on and react. In 20 minutes, the entire school could be dead, regardless of whether Mr. Psycho is using a gun, knife, gasoline, broken bottle, whatever.
Frankly I think they shuold offer a pay bump for teachers who train, qualify and take some security/combat training and agree to double as emergency security for the school. Give them an extra $1000 a year plus pay for training. It owuld be good to teach them non-violent intervention as well (like Detroit threat Management techniques). Ten armed and trained individuals in each school and no shooting incident is going to last 20 minutes. For $10K a year in a school with a multi million dollar budget, that is cheap insurance. Frankly, I woudl rather have teachers trained in gun safety, and threat management than police officers protecting the children. There is an added advantage in that the teachers often will know who belongs in the school and who does not.
Will there be mistkes where someone gets hurt or killed by accident? Probably. There are mistake when we rely on police officers. It is going to happen. However I have no intention of sticking my head in the sand and saying we should have a society where psychos do not want to kill children, rather than doing something to protect our children.
How in the world would teachers being half-assed trained in gun safety be superior to highly trained guards or police officers? When would teachers take these gun training classes? (which would probably have to be several times a week.) Would they skip training sessions to increase their educational skills? Speaking of unions, how do you think the teacher's unions would respond to requiring teachers be trained in gun safety? Would they keep the guns in their desks? Where a kid could get ahold of them? Or at the office in a locked cabinet? Where they'd get shot by a lunatic trying to get at them?
There are over 150,000 schools in the U.S. I think our kids have a better shot taking the odds of 1/150,000 of being a victims of a slaughter than having average joes in each of those 150,000 schools walking around with concealed weapons.
I guess I can put this decision in one that Gov Snyder completely blew. I like most of what he's done but allowing concealed weapons in school is about the only thing that would have prevented a massacre like that which just happened.
Instead, our federal government wants to take advantage of this crisis and get another assault weapon ban in place. You can't let a good crisis go to waste I guess. We have a decade worth of data which showed the law made no difference in crime but facts don't matter to some.
Fewer guns on the market, starting today. I'm not talking about hunting rifles (I fully support people's wish to go hunting), not standard pistols (I fully support people's right to protect their home from invaders). Semi-automatic rifles and pistols? Why? Who needs them?
Do you honestly think it is better to have kids killed by a guy with three pistols than a guy with one "assault rifle" ? I do not see how it makes any difference whatsoever whether a particular gun carrys one more round than some other gun.
How in the world would teachers being half-assed trained in gun safety be superior to highly trained guards or police officers? When would teachers take these gun training classes? (which would probably have to be several times a week.) Would they skip training sessions to increase their educational skills? Speaking of unions, how do you think the teacher's unions would respond to requiring teachers be trained in gun safety? Would they keep the guns in their desks? Where a kid could get ahold of them? Or at the office in a locked cabinet? Where they'd get shot by a lunatic trying to get at them?
There are over 150,000 schools in the U.S. I think our kids have a better shot taking the odds of 1/150,000 of being a victims of a slaughter than having average joes in each of those 150,000 schools walking around with concealed weapons.
Teachers would take the classes at the same times that I do, or anyone else. They work a lot less hours than me. If they are interested, they will take the classes. Many of them already have. One lady I have met at the shooting range is an execellent shooter (much better than me) very safety conscious, very calm cool and collected. I would put her on my team in a gunfight anytime. She is a teacher and already trained. She is a gun safety nut. She would undoubetdly be very happy to be paid an extra $1000 to use her skills to protect her students.
I do not know why you would assume teachers would be trained half assed and policement are full assed trained. Actually policeman training in most communities is woefully inadequate, especially when it comes to weapons. (Go watch them trying to qualify at a range some time). Many policemen agree they are inadequately trained (budget cuts - training is expensive and less visible than buying new cars or repainting them).
I did not suggerst reuiqring teachers to be trained in gun safety. I suggested offering them a bonus $ if they elect to do so. Unions are usually not adverse to their people making more money (well some of them are, but not the good ones).
You can leave your kids' safety to chance if you wish. Personally Iowudl prefer they be protected. I do nto understand whay people think it is good for policemen to have guns to protect themselves and other people to be denied that opportunity. Are policemen magically more stable than other people? Nope. Are they wiser, calmer or tea totallers? Nope again. Frankly given the stereotypical personaly profile of a policeman and that of a teacher, I would much rather have a teacher with a gun hanging around my kids than a policeman.
Teachers with a CCW carry their guns. That is why it is a ccw. Some wear them under their clothing, some keep them in a purse. No trained person ig going to leave a gun where kids cna get at it. Most if they do nto ahve it concealed ontheir person in a holster, put it ins a locked box that is activated by a handprint reader or a combination. Even in a lock box whch takes three or four seconds to get to the gun we would have a killer stopped about fifty dead people before the police will get to him. I prefer those fifty kids live. I am not sure why anyone would want to see those fifty kids die while waiting for the police to arrive, deploy, assess, and react. The teacher in the classroom knows what is going on, (S)he knows who the shooter is and who the good guys are. (S)he does nto have to get a call, drive to the shcool, find a door, wait for back up, find out what is going on, communicate, get orders and finally act. (S)he takes out her .38 and plugs Mr. Psycho a few times - no more dead kids.
Do you honestly think it is better to have kids killed by a guy with three pistols than a guy with one "assault rifle" ? I do not see how it makes any difference whatsoever whether a particular gun carrys one more round than some other gun.
Sure it does. The Sandy Hook guy fired off more than 100 rounds. You carry enough high capacity cartridges with several assault weapons and that's pretty easy to do. A guy walks into a school with a pistol that shoots six rounds, that have to be loaded one bullet at a time, he's way less likely to inflict massive damage.
You know there's a reason why military units carry semi-automatic and automatic weapons, right? It's all about inflicting the most amount of damage in the shortest period of time before authorities can respond.
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.
Don't clean your house, because it will just get dirty again.
