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.
If you arm school employees like secretaries, lunch ladies, teachers, and principals:
--The attacker still has the element of surprise. He could run into the school and fire off a hundred rounds of ammo before the employee even knew what hit him/her. What if the attacker came into one area of the school and the school's firearm was in another area? Do we arm all employees? Does the school become an arsenal of loaded assault rifles? Wouldn't the school's weapons have to be locked up securely somewhere since there are kids everywhere in a school? Would the attacker wait politely while the school employee went to a locked gun cabinet and got out his/her gun? Is the alternative to have loaded weapons lying around on teachers' desks where kids can get at them?
--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.
--Kids and other adults could easily still get caught in the crossfire, and if the attacker came into a room full of people such as a classroom or a lunchroom and a shootout began, they most likely would. If, in the horrible massacre in CT, one of those first grade teachers had been armed with a weapon, and assuming that she could get to it before the attacker began shooting, they would have been shooting back and forth in a confined space full of kids. She could not have been trying to get them to safety, she would have been busy shooting.
Why would knowing that school employees might have loaded guns inside deter someone who was already suicidal and wanted to go out in what they considered a "blaze of glory"? They could still burst in and cause awful carnage before anyone had a chance to shoot back, and they obviously wouldn't care if they died.
I'm no liberal, but I have a real problem with this idea that loading people up with even more assault weapons will stop violence. Heck, I have a real problem with anyone thinking that they need any weapon beyond a hunting rifle or a handgun for self protection. Why does your average American need an assault rifle, for heaven's sake? I think this stuff has gone too far.
I'm not trying to minimize the tragedy in Connecticut because it was a shock. However, there are big issues that are being discussed in response to it. I think any conversation that takes place in regards to the issue of violence has to be beyond the scope of "guns".
I certainly don't have the answer to the issues and I'm certain far greater minds than mine will be dealing with it. But, I do know this: (well, it's my opinion anyway)...
1. If someone is going to commit an incredibly violent act, they are going to commit an incredibly violent act unless they are stopped before doing so. How we can stop it before it happens is everyone's question. (and not start to become paranoid about everyone we see/meet)
2. In my long ago, (often regretted past) I learned after hanging out in not so reputable places that there are things like "gun runners". Little did I know there was a market for shipping, buying, distributing guns illegally. And lot's of them. If people, hell bent for destruction, want to get a gun, (ANY kind of gun)....I'm 100% confident they will do so.
In response to the governor vetoing the legislation, here is what they are doing in Texas:
Frankly, I never thought I'd say it but having someone sane, that knows how to shoot, has been through a rigorous psychological background check might not be a bad idea if they carry. However, I think it has to do with the shooter. There are lot's of people that are responsible, know what a gun can do, and would use it to protect if they had to. How are we going to know who those people are? Again, I'm not certain, but what they're doing at that school seems better than nothing other than to wait for some unstable person to show up and start shooting. What are the options? Call 911? It's too late then. Is what they're doing a viable deterrent? Maybe.
It's all sad beyond belief but the fact is if someone wants a gun, (any kind of gun) there is an avenue to get it illegally, quite easily. Gun runners have not taken a permanent vacation and gun running isn't something that takes place "somewhere else" or "in another country".
I've asked myself if banning assault weapons is going to help. Maybe it will, maybe it won't. I only wish, and hope it does.
If they do ban assault weapons how are they going to stop the sale of illegal assault weapons?
I've heard this is a complicated issue and I agree. I'm among many others that wish they had the answer to stop the violence. One of the posters above was saying it's a parenting issue, making reference to parents being "greedy" and not staying home to take care of their children. My response to that is those union jobs the governor wants to be rid of are the ones that allowed a parent to stay home and take care of the children. Some people are not being "greedy" but trying to keep from losing their home so they work two jobs. We cannot lump "everyone" in a box. (but that is another story)
There are hundreds of facets to the issue.
Last edited by oldtoiletsmkgdflrpots; 12-19-2012 at 08:18 AM..
My reference to the father being greedy was that the terms of his alimony dictate he gives his ex-wife (Adam's mom) $295,000/year. Surely he isn't just "getting by" - He is trained as a lawyer and works as a tax director for GE - a very high paying CT job. My point, was the shame is that he put working up the corporate ladder and perceived success at the expense of his own children.
I would argue the easy scape goat answers are guns or mental health.
In reality, this behavior was largely caused by poor parenting. Parenting that allowed unlimited video games in a windowless basement, parenting that taught it was more important to work long hours and a father's greed than to care for your children leading to divorce. Parenting that instills values that think it's okay to not talk to your brother for two years.
It's not normal to not want to speak to a sibling/family member multiple times a year - even if you don't live nearby. It's a sign of a diseased relationship that leads to feelings of abandonment, loss of self worth and isolation. We should all use this as an opportunity to reach out to someone we haven't spoken to in a while and let them know you care about them and are thinking about them. It may just be that tipping point. You can never legislate morality - it must be taught at home - and when it's correctly taught - when that child is trained in the way he should go, when he is older, he won't depart from it.
This is absolutely the root of it all, and I think most people realize it. The problem is, how do we go back to the old ways, where women believed that being a wife and mother were a high calling and the most important job a person can do, where fathers felt it a duty to care for their families and help to raise their kids to know right from wrong, and where people took their marriage vows "until death do us part" seriously.
I am in my late 40s. My dh and I will be celebrating our 25th anniversary next year. You have no idea the number of people will ask how long we've been married and then act blown away by the answer. Is it honestly the ABnormal thing to do now, keep your marriage vows?
I've asked myself if banning assault weapons is going to help. Maybe it will, maybe it won't. I only wish, and hope it does.
If they do ban assault weapons how are they going to stop the sale of illegal assault weapons?
If assault weapons are banned, what is going to happen when the next incident occurs with a semi-automatic shotgun?
The same people who are responsible for stopping the illegal sale of drugs on America's streets will also be responsible for going after the illegal gun runners.
Deterrent: A school in which someone may be armed (even if no one really is) is a less attractive target than one in which it is verifiable that no one is armed, and
Fighting back: A school in which someone is armed has an infinitely greater chance of stopping a murderer than one that isn't.
That doesn't insure that arming school workers will absolutely prevent these murders from happening. But let's be realistic: can we really totally eliminate all weapons from society? They are here to stay and no matter how many safeguards are in place (most of which I support actually), eliminating guns for the good people only gives the bad people a huge advantage.
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.
If assault weapons are banned, what is going to happen when the next incident occurs with a semi-automatic shotgun?
The same people who are responsible for stopping the illegal sale of drugs on America's streets will also be responsible for going after the illegal gun runners.
The most often used firearm in the most recent incidents: Pump action shotguns and pistols. For all the hundreds of people killed in the last decade or so (Columbine, Ft. Hood, VT, Aurora theatre, last Friday) ONLY in Aurora and Connecticut was something besides a pistol or shotgun used. Columbine, each kid used both, but in every other instance, only a pistol or 2 were used.
In Connecticut and Aurora, CO, a semi-automatic rifle was used - the guy in Colorado also used a pump action shotgun.
Assault weapons haven't been used since the shoot out in North Hollywood when those guys robbed a bank in 97. And in that case, only 2 people died - the two bank robbers. Over 2000 rounds were fired, and the LAPD only had pistols and shotguns.
So what would the good in banning "assault weapons" be?
Maybe you ban semi-automatic weapons? most pistols would be illegal - only single shots and revolvers left - as would one of the most popular target rifles - the Ruger 10/22. Over 5 million of those semi-auto 22 rifles exist. A portion of shotgus would be gone too - including some really nice Italian bird hunting guns...
Ban shotguns? Yeah, I see that going really good. Even the UK doesn't ban shotguns lol.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Retroit
There are two issues as I see it:
Deterrent: A school in which someone may be armed (even if no one really is) is a less attractive target than one in which it is verifiable that no one is armed, and
Fighting back: A school in which someone is armed has an infinitely greater chance of stopping a murderer than one that isn't.
That doesn't insure that arming school workers will absolutely prevent these murders from happening. But let's be realistic: can we really totally eliminate all weapons from society? They are here to stay and no matter how many safeguards are in place (most of which I support actually), eliminating guns for the good people only gives the bad people a huge advantage.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Retroit
I think the solution is not more guns, but rather not letting the nut jobs know whether there are more guns. When you advertise that "No One Here Has A Gun", it is not much of a deterrent to a nut job.
Consider this: when was the last time you heard about a mass murder at a gun show, shooting range, gun store, etc.?
You are missing the MAJOR point. Schools, workplaces, etc. aren't targeted because they are easy. They are targeted because the person feels that said institution has done them wrong. If you post armed guards, they'll just be the first ones shot.
This is absolutely the root of it all, and I think most people realize it. The problem is, how do we go back to the old ways, where women believed that being a wife and mother were a high calling and the most important job a person can do, where fathers felt it a duty to care for their families and help to raise their kids to know right from wrong, and where people took their marriage vows "until death do us part" seriously.
I am in my late 40s. My dh and I will be celebrating our 25th anniversary next year. You have no idea the number of people will ask how long we've been married and then act blown away by the answer. Is it honestly the ABnormal thing to do now, keep your marriage vows?
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.
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.
