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.
With the recent tragic shooting spree in Florida weighing heavy on our hearts the nations attention has tuned to what to do about this terrible problem.
Some would ban guns outright but we all know this would do nothing to stop those bent on murder.
Others are looking to regulate gun ownership by raising the minimum age for certain types of guns and expanding background checks which does seem like a good start.
While others including our President think it is a good idea to allow teachers that have been trained to carry a firearm in school.
As news emerges from Florida we have found out that the security detail that was supposed to be positioned to prevent this type of maniac from getting into the school sat in his car waiting for the shooting to stop. Now I know that most Police officers would do everything they could to help the victims but this incident should give everyone pause to consider that even if the cavalry is outside they might not be able or willing to help which leaves us on our own.
The response times after calling 911 can be several minutes and what happens during that time can be life or death.
This question is for the anti gun people that would disarm the law abiding gun owners of this nation.
If a deranged shooter was outside your classroom, office or home door would you want a gun to defend yourself, your family, friends, children, or would you throw yourself at the mercy of the lunatic that wants to kill you?
Even if we removed the gun and gave the sicko a machete wouldn't you want to have the means to stop the threat from hurting or killing someone?
There is a saying in war time that there are no atheists in foxholes and I think the same could be said of even the staunchest anti gun person that if they were in a tight spot such as a shooter outside their door that they would want the means to stop that person.
I'm no LEO and a firm believer in every man for himself, out in the world at least. Protect the innocent? If it was that man's job to protect the innocent and he was derelict in duty, remove him from active duty at-minimum. I notice he's doing his talking through "the union" at-current, meaning they know there was some sort of inadequate response, or at least perception of one. If that was the "resource officer" they'd better re-think the paradigm. I'll give him this: one man with a handgun charging unknown assailant(s) with rifle(s) is a great way to get killed, btw. At-best, two men flank the shooter, draw fire, while your partner neutralizes the threat from another direction.
Nor am I sure who is teaching said-security, if "lock down" means hide in place: that's the opposite of what one must do during a gunfight, btw. Offense: shoot, move cover to cover, press the attack. Or, opposite: retreat with cover fire if-possible, move cover to cover, stay low, non-liner path from axis of the shooter? What, is that rocket science?
There are those who don't want to "militarize schools" either. Apparently there have already been student "conflicts" with RO's, see stories of kids being handcuffed. Those are civil matters for the courts to decide, doesn't mean much to me if brats are cuffed and hauled to jail and thence reform school. Those who suggest that contributes to a "negative learning environment" tend to trump those in favor of security, though. Security always needs to be vigilant, a clever attacker only needs to survey the situation and hit a soft target once.
There are no answers from pacifists when gunmen are at the door. I guess they hide, see above, and are hunted down at-leisure or wait for the police to save them. Good luck with that. It's a rare thing, but does happen: some drugged-out zombies busted into neighbor of a colleague's house, some years ago, and took his gun away because he wouldn't shoot. Idiot. Fortunately the zombies just beat him down (the neighbor) and didn't kill him or anyone else. Who knows what they were after. Eventually, they left. Later, the cops shot one but he didn't die, was in the town's local news (Duvall, WA) c. 2010 for a day or so. The news got it all wrong, I heard the straight dope from my colleague. The cops show up far too late to do much good, most of the time: whatever it is that will happen is there and gone again.
Arguing and discussion is done with the freakout brigade, they aren't interested. Anyone who posts a "gun free zone" sign is merely oppressing the rights of lawful carriers. While I don't necessarily agree with Wayne LaPierre's current comments about "more school security," nor do I have a pat answer, the good work the NRA does for this country cannot be understated. Thank God they're backed by a sizable portion of us, too.
If a deranged shooter was outside your classroom, office or home door would you want a gun to defend yourself, your family, friends, children, or would you throw yourself at the mercy of the lunatic that wants to kill you?
Even if we removed the gun and gave the sicko a machete wouldn't you want to have the means to stop the threat from hurting or killing someone?
I have no issue with someone not wanting to carry or fire a gun. That's a personal choice that each of us needs to make, and for those who do not want to do so, for whatever reason, that's on them. Lord willing, they will never find themselves in a situation as described here; or if they do, the police will be able to get there quickly. But that's a risk that they chose to take.
It's when they start to try and make such decisions for the rest of us that I take issue.
With the recent tragic shooting spree in Florida weighing heavy on our hearts the nations attention has tuned to what to do about this terrible problem.
Some would ban guns outright but we all know this would do nothing to stop those bent on murder.
Others are looking to regulate gun ownership by raising the minimum age for certain types of guns and expanding background checks which does seem like a good start.
While others including our President think it is a good idea to allow teachers that have been trained to carry a firearm in school.
As news emerges from Florida we have found out that the security detail that was supposed to be positioned to prevent this type of maniac from getting into the school sat in his car waiting for the shooting to stop. Now I know that most Police officers would do everything they could to help the victims but this incident should give everyone pause to consider that even if the cavalry is outside they might not be able or willing to help which leaves us on our own.
The response times after calling 911 can be several minutes and what happens during that time can be life or death.
This question is for the anti gun people that would disarm the law abiding gun owners of this nation.
If a deranged shooter was outside your classroom, office or home door would you want a gun to defend yourself, your family, friends, children, or would you throw yourself at the mercy of the lunatic that wants to kill you?
Even if we removed the gun and gave the sicko a machete wouldn't you want to have the means to stop the threat from hurting or killing someone?
There is a saying in war time that there are no atheists in foxholes and I think the same could be said of even the staunchest anti gun person that if they were in a tight spot such as a shooter outside their door that they would want the means to stop that person.
Will the anti gun people admit this?
I'm not anti-gun, but I don't always own one either. I consider it a tool that can be used both responsibly and irresponsibly. I believe there are other ways to defend yourself. Many other objects can be used as a defensive weapon. Certainly you must learn how to use them just as you have to learn to use a firearm. You need to be clear with yourself about your capabilities, how willing you are to do anything, and under what circumstances. A responsible owner of a firearm would or should do this too. Of course each "weapon" has its advantages and disadvantages...won't state the obvious....I just don't believe anyone is automatically helpless simply because they don't have a gun.
Last edited by Parnassia; 02-23-2018 at 01:58 PM..
I'm not anti-gun, but I don't always own one either. I consider it a tool that can be used both responsibly and irresponsibly. I believe there are other ways to defend yourself. Many other objects can be used as a defensive weapon. Certainly you must learn how to use them just as you have to learn to use a firearm. You need to be clear with yourself about your capabilities, how willing you are to do anything, and under what circumstances. A responsible owner of a firearm would or should do this too. Of course each "weapon" has its advantages and disadvantages...won't state the obvious....I just don't believe anyone is automatically helpless simply because they don't have a gun.
Of course there are different weapons that can be used in any given situation but if a school shooter was on the other side of the door and the only thing you have to swing at him is a desk if he was to come through that door I don't hold out much hope for the people in that class room.
A gun is known as the "great equalizer".
What if some 20 something idiot kicked in the door at the home of a senior citizen and he was armed with a club.
The presence of a gun in the hands of that senior could stop the idiot from attacking and get him leave.
I just can't think that the gun grabbers are so insane that if they were faced with death and a good guy with a gun saved their lives that they wouldn't be happy that the armed citizen saved them?
With what I am hearing on the news it seems like the Left would be very happy to disarm all the law abiding gun owning citizens while leaving us all exposed to the criminals.
The common misconception here is the term "gun grabber".
Not all of the folks who want some additional restrictions are looking to take away the guns.
A short term approach to gun legislation in the past is causing trouble for us in the present. If restrictions on guns were put in place back when suppressors became restricted we would probably still have automatic weapons today and not be talking about restrictions on assault "style" weapons because the shootings would have been greatly reduced.
I'm a concealed carry holder, I own a handgun and semi-automatic rifles as well as a suppressor and I think the NRA is doing gun owners a dis-service by attempting to remove all firearm related legislation.
Responsibility in the form of background checks and permitting will go a long way in keeping our guns well into the future.
The OP misses the point entirely of the gun debate.
If we're to believe the far-right, the answer to "what would you do if a gunman was outside your door?" can only be "empty an entire rifle magazine on full-auto into the gunman, his car, that dog outside, and the house across the street."
Oh, and when it is determined that the gunman outside your door was a known criminal or mentally ill person who bought his gun legally thanks to laughably bad and poorly enforced gun laws, you should be happy about this, slap a 2nd Amendment bumper-stick on your car, and go out and buy more ammo.
Very, VERY few people are against "All guns." But if you need a full-auto weapon that can poor dozens of rounds into a target in seconds, to defend your home, you should spend more money on moving and less money on guns and ammo. Last I check, a revolver, limited magazine pistol, shotgun, or limited ammo and non-full auto rifle was still more than capable of killing an attacker. And this doesn't even get into the absurd lack of full background checks on gun sales, the private sale loophole, the ability of people on the no-fly list to buy guns, the ability of the mentally ill to buy guns, and so on.
What if some 20 something idiot kicked in the door at the home of a senior citizen and he was armed with a club. The presence of a gun in the hands of that senior could stop the idiot from attacking and get him leave.
I just can't think that the gun grabbers are so insane that if they were faced with death and a good guy with a gun saved their lives that they wouldn't be happy that the armed citizen saved them?
Are you contending that nothing short of an "assault rifle" on full auto will stop an attacker? Because that's what this is about. No private citizens needs what are basically military grade weapons meant to kill squads of enemy soldiers for "self-defense" or "hunting." And mentally ill people, thugs, people on the no-fly list, and other glaring obviously problem people shouldn't have guns. This is common sense.
Don't get me wrong: I am strongly opposed to the banning of ALL guns, I hate the hypocritical restrictions on less-lethal weapons in this nation and others, and I think gun training should be more common.
But in all of that, NOBODY as a private citizens needs a weapon designed to dump hundreds of rounds a minute down-range on full-auto mode. That is not a "self-defense" or "hunting" weapon - that is a military grade tool that should only be in the hands of trained professionals... not dolts with Rambo complexes and who knows what mental health or drug issues.
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.
