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.
They wouldn't need to carry weapons if the school just supplied them and had a place to stash them outside the view of the kids. I surely do think that his numbers would have been much lower if all six of them had been able to shoot back, though.
Maybe, maybe not... it's easy to play "Monday morning quarterback," but in reality we cannot say for sure if it would have helped. I was reading a Facebook thread on the issue, and this one woman commented how she'd always said "I will shoot & kill any intruder in my home" - until it actually happened, and she completely froze (luckily he left without hurting her). But as much as it pains me to say, I don't disagree that schools should have at least one safely-stored weapon on site. Sucks that our society has come to that, but obviously we need to fight back somehow.
I believe in teaching children that there is a God who will judge our actions when our lives are over, and that suicide will not allow us to escape punishment.
Maybe, maybe not... it's easy to play "Monday morning quarterback," but in reality we cannot say for sure if it would have helped. I was reading a Facebook thread on the issue, and this one woman commented how she'd always said "I will shoot & kill any intruder in my home" - until it actually happened, and she completely froze (luckily he left without hurting her). But as much as it pains me to say, I don't disagree that schools should have at least one safely-stored weapon on site. Sucks that our society has come to that, but obviously we need to fight back somehow.
That's why I don't want teachers with guns, its easy to say what you would do until it actually happens, we don't need a teacher holding a gun only to have it taken away and used to kill more students, we need trained people in the schools, and I vote for the military. Bring them home from the ridiculous occupations that we have all over the world and let the mentally stable ones protect our school.
Why is it that we can protect other nations like South Korea, but not our own kids? It's sickening.
I believe in teaching children that there is a God who will judge our actions when our lives are over, and that suicide will not allow us to escape punishment.
Which god? Yours, mine, or the Muslim/Hindu/Buddhist/etc kids' god?
And this is why we have separation of church & state, so if you want your kids learning religion in school, send them to the religious school of your choice - or homeschool them. Besides, I'm not sure how this would have stopped a mentally ill adult from massacring children.
That's why I don't want teachers with guns, its easy to say what you would do until it actually happens, we don't need a teacher holding a gun only to have it taken away and used to kill more students, we need trained people in the schools, and I vote for the military. Bring them home from the ridiculous occupations that we have all over the world and let the mentally stable ones protect our school.
Why is it that we can protect other nations like South Korea, but not our own kids? It's sickening.
Good points... and given how much money we spend on defense every year, maybe it's time we found more jobs for them here in the good 'ol USofA. Like you said, how is it that we're better at protecting foreign interests than our own children?
Which god? Yours, mine, or the Muslim/Hindu/Buddhist/etc kids' god?
And this is why we have separation of church & state, so if you want your kids learning religion in school, send them to the religious school of your choice - or homeschool them. Besides, I'm not sure how this would have stopped a mentally ill adult from massacring children.
ANY GOD just as long as it is a God and we will make us answer for our actions. Also good parents that will make kids answer for their actions right now, right here.
If we simply socialized (there, I said it) mental health and weeded these people out, that would be the end of rampage shootings. These things don't happen because of guns but because of lack of mental healthcare...ban guns, and psychos would start building truck bombs to park in front of schools Oklahoma City style.
If we simply socialized (there, I said it) mental health and weeded these people out, that would be the end of rampage shootings. These things don't happen because of guns but because of lack of mental healthcare...ban guns, and psychos would start building truck bombs to park in front of schools Oklahoma City style.
Trying to find the logic here... You can't possibly end rampage shootings without completely eliminating access to firearms. You can "weed" psychos only as much as they're made available to mental health professionals (there are plenty that go undiagnosed), but if any gun is available then there is the potential for a massacre.
On the other hand, OKC bomber killed 168 people, including 19 children, without a gun. He could've been "weeded out" and unable to acquire a firearm, but he was still able to commit the biggest act of domestic terrorism in US history.
Trying to find the logic here... You can't possibly end rampage shootings without completely eliminating access to firearms. You can "weed" psychos only as much as they're made available to mental health professionals (there are plenty that go undiagnosed), but if any gun is available then there is the potential for a massacre.
On the other hand, OKC bomber killed 168 people, including 19 children, without a gun. He could've been "weeded out" and unable to acquire a firearm, but he was still able to commit the biggest act of domestic terrorism in US history.
people probably dont remember this, but the only reason he was held by Oklahoma was that he had a firearm on him. if mcveigh would not have had that pistol on him, he would have gotten a ticket from the state police for his license plates and allowed to drive on.
Trying to find the logic here... You can't possibly end rampage shootings without completely eliminating access to firearms. You can "weed" psychos only as much as they're made available to mental health professionals (there are plenty that go undiagnosed), but if any gun is available then there is the potential for a massacre.
On the other hand, OKC bomber killed 168 people, including 19 children, without a gun. He could've been "weeded out" and unable to acquire a firearm, but he was still able to commit the biggest act of domestic terrorism in US history.
Okay. Not end entirely, but cut down on rampage killings if we had better mental health. But still, as much as people don't want to hear it there is one answer to what happened in Connecticut: S***T HAPPENS!
Get over it people! 20 out of the over a million kids in this country died. Big F***** ing deal. Why change laws based on one absurdly random event? Kids are much more likely to be killed by a parent than a rampage shooter...so should we outlaw parenting? (well, I would be for that, but that's enough thread)
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.
