Are the pro-gun people really this irrational? (legal, heroin, drugs)
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.
Yes, he was eating lunch nearby and showed up after the shooting started. He was a "community resource officer", not a guard.
So you expect the security guards you hire, to not take lunches/bathroom breaks? These are unpaid volunteers?
However, this ultimately doesn't matter.
A "Good guy with a gun" was at a situation where a "bad guy with a gun" was as well. He proved to be ineffective DESPITE actively getting in a shootout with the school shooter.
"The only thing that can stop a bad guy with a gun, is a good guy with a gun" - Joe Paggs, I believe..
So you expect the security guards you hire, to not take lunches/bathroom breaks? These are unpaid volunteers?
If you have guards, to be effective you need to have enough guards to provide coverage at all times. You think the guards at the White House all get to go on break at the same time? That's part of the difference between having armed guards and just having a cop (who is armed) assigned to the school. This does mean it's much more expensive to have armed guards than a "community relations officer".
Quote:
However, this ultimately doesn't matter.
A "Good guy with a gun" was at a situation where a "bad guy with a gun" was as well. He proved to be ineffective DESPITE actively getting in a shootout with the school shooter.
"The only thing that can stop a bad guy with a gun, is a good guy with a gun" - Joe Paggs, I believe..
Your reasoning is fallacious. To say that "The only thing that can stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun" does not imply "A good guy with a gun can always stop a bad guy with a gun".
If you have guards, to be effective you need to have enough guards to provide coverage at all times. You think the guards at the White House all get to go on break at the same time? That's part of the difference between having armed guards and just having a cop (who is armed) assigned to the school. This does mean it's much more expensive to have armed guards than a "community relations officer".
How many elementary, middle, and highschools in the US do you think there are? How many armed guards do you propose, and what should their pay be?
Note - on the quote I was referencing from the radio, it was retired volunteers - certainly not the professional guards in your post (professional meaning paid to do this, higher quality expected).
What about private schools?
Will they just go un-armed, or will they be forced to have these guards too (passing the buck to the parents in tuition costs?) It seems like in your world, they either become un-armed repositories of unprotected "babies" (as a radio host called them) just waiting for an incident, or tuition will skyrocket as armed guards take over and militarize the place for learning.
Or we could simply ban guns and remain rational...
Quote:
Originally Posted by nybbler
Your reasoning is fallacious. To say that "The only thing that can stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun" does not imply "A good guy with a gun can always stop a bad guy with a gun".
It's a direct quote from a conservative talk radio host - not mine.
But you're exactly right.
So introducing all these security measures, and leaving high powered weapons in the hands of people who don't need them (non law-enforcement, military), doesn't ensure the next columbine won't happen.
So introducing all these security measures, and leaving high powered weapons in the hands of people who don't need them (non law-enforcement, military), doesn't ensure the next columbine won't happen.
That's my point.
You know what would be more effective? Yep..
I'm proud to call myself a conservative -- Libertarian and focused on economic rather than social issues. I believe that any attempt to "fix things" by do-gooders (who are actually obsessed with power) is doomed to fail -- the only question is how much of all our efforts and resources will be wasted, and how many innocent outsiders penalized in the process.
Most of the problems and imbalances in our educational system today can be traced to two mega-trends; the intensification of the full emancipation of women which began in the late Sixties, and the transformation of the National Education Assocision (NEA) from a benign lobby to a true labor union, which began around the same time.
These trends were unstoppable and driven by grass-roots economic issues. But like just about every similar movement, they overstepped their natural limits when coupled with the government's monopoly on power.
I attended public schools from 1955-1967, and was favored with a close relative who was a school administrator. In those times, most elementary schools had one or two male teachers in the upper grades, and the principal was usually male. That, of course, would be viewed as unthinkably discriminatory in the eyes of the "New Puritanism/Sensitivity".
In Pennsylvania, where I grew up and have retruned for retirement, the vast majority of educators were trained in a "state teachers' college system"; women predominated among the student body, but the male-oriented structure common to the day remained in force until roughly 1980. At that point, the emerging culture of Political Correctness began to establish itself.
My only point is -- the Politically Correct are far more prone to place trust in "the system" and in "answers" based more completely upon faith in legalistic and bureaucratic methods rather than the common sense which those of us whom life has sometimes pushed "closer to the street" tend to do.
Sandy Hook Elementary was a classic example of this mentality -- and it happed to become the classic, tragic demonstration of the guaranteed failure of the pursuit of Absolute Security.
Last edited by 2nd trick op; 12-23-2012 at 11:07 PM..
How many elementary, middle, and highschools in the US do you think there are? How many armed guards do you propose, and what should their pay be?
Note - on the quote I was referencing from the radio, it was retired volunteers - certainly not the professional guards in your post (professional meaning paid to do this, higher quality expected).
What about private schools?
Will they just go un-armed, or will they be forced to have these guards too (passing the buck to the parents in tuition costs?) It seems like in your world, they either become un-armed repositories of unprotected "babies" (as a radio host called them) just waiting for an incident, or tuition will skyrocket as armed guards take over and militarize the place for learning.
Or we could simply ban guns and remain rational...
It's a direct quote from a conservative talk radio host - not mine.
But you're exactly right.
So introducing all these security measures, and leaving high powered weapons in the hands of people who don't need them (non law-enforcement, military), doesn't ensure the next columbine won't happen.
That's my point.
You know what would be more effective? Yep..
You realize guns are already banned on school premises, right? Even if we lived in magical fairyland and you could make guns go away by simply making them illegal, there are plenty of ways to kill people.
You realize guns are already banned on school premises, right? Even if we lived in magical fairyland and you could make guns go away by simply making them illegal, there are plenty of ways to kill people.
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.."
"What type of person thinks more guns in schools is the answer?"
Schools are 'gun-free zones' right now, correct? And, teachers are awesome people, public servants of the highest order, right? I'm not thinking we might 'force' a CCW on every teacher, but surely there are a couple that may 'volunteer' for the role. And, I'm thinking 'sky marshals', where they're not obviously identified... And I'm thinking that even if they are not posted out front - they would certainly have a chance to get to the scene before '911' forces many times can. They would know the premises better, etc, etc. Don't you think teachers (or other school employees) are generally capable, rational, level-headed folks?
I also think we need some mental health options (more than we have now; less than we had in the 'olden days') - I don't know exactly what would be fair, realistic, and truly useful though.
I do know none of this is quick fix, easy, stuff. I just want to suggest, don't stress (too much) - I trust that good people will consider good ideas.
"What type of person thinks more guns in schools is the answer?"
Schools are 'gun-free zones' right now, correct? And, teachers are awesome people, public servants of the highest order, right? I'm not thinking we might 'force' a CCW on every teacher, but surely there are a couple that may 'volunteer' for the role. And, I'm thinking 'sky marshals', where they're not obviously identified... And I'm thinking that even if they are not posted out front - they would certainly have a chance to get to the scene before '911' forces many times can. They would know the premises better, etc, etc. Don't you think teachers (or other school employees) are generally capable, rational, level-headed folks?
I also think we need some mental health options (more than we have now; less than we had in the 'olden days') - I don't know exactly what would be fair, realistic, and truly useful though.
I do know none of this is quick fix, easy, stuff. I just want to suggest, don't stress (too much) - I trust that good people will consider good ideas.
As the child of two teachers (plus 3 in my extended family) - no.
Teachers come in all shapes/sizes/personalities and often with their own issues. I suspect MORE shootings would occur if teachers were given guns..
What I don't get is - both sides of the argument want to get to point z (no more school shootings).
Since "never" is unrealistic - all we could hope for is to extremely limit it from occurring.
The proside wants to run through point B-C-D-E-F-G- etc etc to get there. Each number would create its own problems - ie, - who would pay the "sky marshals"? How many per school? Do you realize how many elementary/middle/highschools there are? Would they extend to afterschool activities? What about the teachers with guns? Who pays for the guns, the training, - what happens if no teachers want to pursue it? etc etc etc etc...etc etc etc etc..
And even despite all this - having someone there with a gun during a school shooting has proven to be ineffective. As in Columbine - the armed guard was even in a shootout with one of the shooters...
Or we could ban guns from non military/police officers.
We could skip B,C,D,E,F,G etc etc etc - and jump straight to the option that would take guns away from people who don't need them..
We could skip B,C,D,E,F,G etc etc etc - and jump straight to the option that would take guns away from people who don't need them..
1) Who says we don't need them?
2) Who are you to decide if our need is legitimate?
3) Removing guns from law abiding citizens doesn't stop criminals or psychos.
4) What part of #3 don't you understand? Prohibition fails in America every time
Oh and finally...
5) Laws can't be retroactive. Banning guns won't remove them from the population, only prevent new ones from being manufactured
6) You don't have the political power to overturn the 2nd amendment.
7) You don't have the power to take the guns by force.
So why keep beating a dead horse?
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.
