Gun Control

[teachercd]

It bothers me how quick gun activist are to exonerate themselves of any responsibility for our insane culture of gun violence in this country in the wake of a tragedy. I say gun activist because I am a gun owner, but not an activist. Most of the "activist" I know, the clowns who really think they need AR replicas and that anyone gives a **** about their opinion on facebook they day after a school is shot up, are not interested at all in responsible ownership, safety, or most of the time even hunting. It's sad and pathetic that not a week after this, we've already reasoned that nothing can really be done, legislation will actually make things worse, and anyone who wants to do something this horrifying will easily obtain guns somehow, somewhere...so basically screw it besides the mandatory obfuscated rhetoric.

 

This is without a doubt, 100%, the very post thought/post on this topic so far!

[Conga3]

It bothers me how quick gun activist are to exonerate themselves of any responsibility for our insane culture of gun violence in this country in the wake of a tragedy. I say gun activist because I am a gun owner, but not an activist. Most of the "activist" I know, the clowns who really think they need AR replicas and that anyone gives a **** about their opinion on facebook they day after a school is shot up, are not interested at all in responsible ownership, safety, or most of the time even hunting. It's sad and pathetic that not a week after this, we've already reasoned that nothing can really be done, legislation will actually make things worse, and anyone who wants to do something this horrifying will easily obtain guns somehow, somewhere...so basically screw it besides the mandatory obfuscated rhetoric.

 

This is without a doubt, 100%, the very post thought/post on this topic so far!

I don't observe much 'thought' put into that post. It's mostly just emotion. Anger for one side of the gun control debate for reacting to the other side trying to exploit the tragedy to push through legislation that wouldn't pass otherwise.

[beanman]

It bothers me how quick gun activist are to exonerate themselves of any responsibility for our insane culture of gun violence in this country in the wake of a tragedy. I say gun activist because I am a gun owner, but not an activist. Most of the "activist" I know, the clowns who really think they need AR replicas and that anyone gives a **** about their opinion on facebook they day after a school is shot up, are not interested at all in responsible ownership, safety, or most of the time even hunting. It's sad and pathetic that not a week after this, we've already reasoned that nothing can really be done, legislation will actually make things worse, and anyone who wants to do something this horrifying will easily obtain guns somehow, somewhere...so basically screw it besides the mandatory obfuscated rhetoric.

 

This is without a doubt, 100%, the very post thought/post on this topic so far!

I don't think we've reasoned that nothing can be done, but I think most of us are in the camp that says that legislation will not be the silver bullet that people are looking for. It's a combination of a lot of things and we can't focus on one thing to solve the problem. Immediately following the shootings I was all about legislation but I honestly don't see that being that effective. Sure it may help make it more difficult when someone snaps and wants to go by a gun on a whim, but when you really want one, you know people who have them and can always get them if needed. Here's what I suggest; feel free to criticize, I don't have a horse in this race other than the hope that no more innocent people get killed in these shootings:

1. Quit publicizing the name of the shooter and making a media circus out of this sh#t, and make sure you make it clear right now that any future shootings will not release the name of the shooter. Make it a crime to leak his name. The media is a problem too. They're vultures. Interviewing children right after an incident like this is shameless.
   
2. Work on some type of legislation (tschu had some decent ideas above) and hope that both sides can come up with some sort of compromise in less than a year.
   
3. Put some focus on medications used on younger people and on mental health issues as a whole. Just hop on some forums sometime discussing some of these meds people are on and read about what they go through while starting it, while on it, and while trying to get off of it. It's pretty scary honestly. You'd be surprised how many young people have mental illness and how frequently they're on meds too even though they're in a high risk group for suicidal thoughts, etc. from the medication.
   
4. Focus on something for schools to protect themselves since they seem to be the most popular target. Evacuation plans, security systems, etc. Doesn't have to be anything super high tech, just something to help when minutes count. You give most classrooms 2 exits for fire code reasons, figure out how to use them to your advantage in a crisis. Make buildings more secure so you have time to react when you notice someone trying to force their way in. My kids' school has all glass doors. Locking the doors isn't stopping sh#t. It's hard to do stuff like this without making school feel like a prison, but you gotta do something.
   
5. Probably many more little things that can be done to help, just a few ideas.
   

[Conga3]

I don't know what the right answer is as far as the gun control debate is concerned. I'm not a believer in making it so strict that your average "Joe" can't get a weapon. You only keep the weapons out of the law abiding citizens hands and criminals and nut jobs will always find a way to get them. Just the way it is..............................I am a firm believer in taking schools out of the "weapon free zone" for people that have a CCW. No, I don't think little Joey should be able to carry a knife on the grounds if he wants to, screw him. I'm talking about people that have went through the process to get a CCW and this would further allow the argument on whether to arm teachers or not to happen. It's already happened in a small district in Texas, but they started talking about it last October! I believe that teachers should be allowed to carry if the district allows it, state law allows it, and they attend the proper training to show they are proficient with their firearm. It's the ONLY way to help stop the violence on some level and even then, it won't stop it completely. There are several layers to stop these events from occurring and it starts with our nations mental health care. So start there as that has long-term effects, you might see the effects 10 to 15 years down the road or longer, but our mental health care is a joke! People that have CCW's aren't the ones shooting places up and doing a bunch of stupid crap. They've done the things necessary to be able to carry their weapons to protect themselves and their families and aren't going to screw that up. I would much rather have a teacher there with a weapon that can do something about it than wait the few minutes for a cop to show up and do something about it. You can save A LOT of lives in those few minutes....................In Sandyville from the time the officers were dispatched to the time they arrived was 3 minutes, at 5 minutes they were notified of shooting occurring in the office and at 7 minutes the event was over.

No matter how well this idea is presented or supported by facts, there are a huge number of people who are simply not mentally wired to accept the argument.

 

For some, the accepted truth is : Gun crimes are caused by guns...if you reduce the number of guns, gun crimes will also be reduced. To maximize the effect, just bans guns altogether. Going the opposite direction, and increasing the number of people with guns can only lead to more gun crimes/death.

 

It's simple logic which requires the very least amount of faith to be put into their fellow citizens.

 

Unfortunately it also is the position with the least regard for individual freedom/responsibility.

[beanman]

http://www.slate.com/blogs/crime/2012/12/16/gun_control_after_connecticut_shooting_could_australia_s_laws_provide_a.html

 

Discuss.

[Conga3]

Judging by your user name I'm assuming you're a teacher. How would you feel about yourself or a few of your colleagues being trained with a pistol and being armed at school? Think it's too risky?

 

I don't think it is too risky, I just think that it is not realistic. I think a lot of people have this romanticized idea of what it would be like: Bad guy comes in, pulls out his gun and is ready to start shooting up the place but the hero teacher pulls out his/her piece first, takes aim and BAM, takes down the would be killer.

 

I just don't think it is realistic. I mean, cops that are on the job for 30 years often times never pull their gun out once, most people that do use a gun in the "line of fire" are not going to be such an amazing shot that they kill the person with one shot, it would probably end up killing some innocent kid. Plus, I mean, you are really asking a lot of the teacher too. You are basically asking them "Will you take a life", I don't know, it just seems like that would be really really tough.

 

I really don't have a good answer for it. Sorry!

It's not a very romantic concept at all. It's as simple as a deadly "threat" in responsible hands is used to repel or otherwise subdue an attacker by whatever means necessary and called for.

 

It doesn't have to play out how you envision it in some sort of "Hollywood" style gun battle. It'd probably look something more like this :

 

 

 

Some people freeze. Some people take cover. Some people make poor decisions and make themselves more likely to get injured.

 

It only takes one in most cases to have their sh*t together.

 

But, not everyone is capable of this sort of bravery.. you are right.

 

So I propose some legislation. A reduction in requirements for teaching positions in our public schools for former military and police officers, and a preference/quota for their hire.

 

But good luck getting the teachers unions to back that proposal.

[Conga3]

http://www.slate.com..._provide_a.html

 

Discuss.

Good find... gonna take awhile to read all the linked articles.

 

..but first I'll +1 the first person who can come up with the name of that really good Australian movie where the mom is some sort of gang "boss" and...darn can't remember the plot.... Not very old.

[NUance]

http://www.slate.com..._provide_a.html

 

Discuss.

Good find... gonna take awhile to read all the linked articles.

 

..but first I'll +1 the first person who can come up with the name of that really good Australian movie where the mom is some sort of gang "boss" and...darn can't remember the plot.... Not very old.

Animal Kingdom

[Conga3]

http://www.slate.com..._provide_a.html

 

Discuss.

Good find... gonna take awhile to read all the linked articles.

 

..but first I'll +1 the first person who can come up with the name of that really good Australian movie where the mom is some sort of gang "boss" and...darn can't remember the plot.... Not very old.

Animal Kingdom

Thank you! +1 good sir! I failed at the Google machine with my inputs. :/

[teachercd]

Judging by your user name I'm assuming you're a teacher. How would you feel about yourself or a few of your colleagues being trained with a pistol and being armed at school? Think it's too risky?

 

I don't think it is too risky, I just think that it is not realistic. I think a lot of people have this romanticized idea of what it would be like: Bad guy comes in, pulls out his gun and is ready to start shooting up the place but the hero teacher pulls out his/her piece first, takes aim and BAM, takes down the would be killer.

 

I just don't think it is realistic. I mean, cops that are on the job for 30 years often times never pull their gun out once, most people that do use a gun in the "line of fire" are not going to be such an amazing shot that they kill the person with one shot, it would probably end up killing some innocent kid. Plus, I mean, you are really asking a lot of the teacher too. You are basically asking them "Will you take a life", I don't know, it just seems like that would be really really tough.

 

I really don't have a good answer for it. Sorry!

It's not a very romantic concept at all. It's as simple as a deadly "threat" in responsible hands is used to repel or otherwise subdue an attacker by whatever means necessary and called for.

 

It doesn't have to play out how you envision it in some sort of "Hollywood" style gun battle. It'd probably look something more like this :

 

 

 

Some people freeze. Some people take cover. Some people make poor decisions and make themselves more likely to get injured.

 

It only takes one in most cases to have their sh*t together.

 

But, not everyone is capable of this sort of bravery.. you are right.

 

So I propose some legislation. A reduction in requirements for teaching positions in our public schools for former military and police officers, and a preference/quota for their hire.

 

But good luck getting the teachers unions to back that proposal.

 

It is romanticized, just like the wild west, where in reality there were about 5-6 gun fights, we pretend like they happened all the time. A teacher, teaching in a class when some dude kicks open his/her door and starts shooting up, is probably not going to become your version of Doc Holliday.

 

Now, as far as the teachers unions, they are not strong, nor do they dictate the teaching requirements needed, that is the state (in most cases) and in some regards the federal government.

 

That video, that is about burglary! Dudes are not coming into a school, guns blazing, to ROB! They are coming there to kill, totally different.

[teachercd]

Judging by your user name I'm assuming you're a teacher. How would you feel about yourself or a few of your colleagues being trained with a pistol and being armed at school? Think it's too risky?

 

I don't think it is too risky, I just think that it is not realistic. I think a lot of people have this romanticized idea of what it would be like: Bad guy comes in, pulls out his gun and is ready to start shooting up the place but the hero teacher pulls out his/her piece first, takes aim and BAM, takes down the would be killer.

 

I just don't think it is realistic. I mean, cops that are on the job for 30 years often times never pull their gun out once, most people that do use a gun in the "line of fire" are not going to be such an amazing shot that they kill the person with one shot, it would probably end up killing some innocent kid. Plus, I mean, you are really asking a lot of the teacher too. You are basically asking them "Will you take a life", I don't know, it just seems like that would be really really tough.

 

I really don't have a good answer for it. Sorry!

It's not a very romantic concept at all. It's as simple as a deadly "threat" in responsible hands is used to repel or otherwise subdue an attacker by whatever means necessary and called for.

 

It doesn't have to play out how you envision it in some sort of "Hollywood" style gun battle. It'd probably look something more like this :

 

 

 

Some people freeze. Some people take cover. Some people make poor decisions and make themselves more likely to get injured.

 

It only takes one in most cases to have their sh*t together.

 

But, not everyone is capable of this sort of bravery.. you are right.

 

So I propose some legislation. A reduction in requirements for teaching positions in our public schools for former military and police officers, and a preference/quota for their hire.

 

But good luck getting the teachers unions to back that proposal.

 

It is romanticized, just like the wild west, where in reality there were about 5-6 gun fights, we pretend like they happened all the time. A teacher, teaching in a class when some dude kicks open his/her door and starts shooting up, is probably not going to become your version of Doc Holliday.

 

Now, as far as the teachers unions, they are not strong, nor do they dictate the teaching requirements needed, that is the state (in most cases) and in some regards the federal government.

 

That video, that is about burglary! Dudes are not coming into a school, guns blazing, to ROB! They are coming there to kill, totally different, a guy coming in and start to shoot kids, much much different. It is not like the teacher would be in class, teaching, marker in one hand...gun in the other.

 

Look, it could be calm and cool but I can tell you from my experience that it probably would not be. I would hope you are right, so that the "bad guy" gets his!

[BIGREDIOWAN]

I don't know what the right answer is as far as the gun control debate is concerned. I'm not a believer in making it so strict that your average "Joe" can't get a weapon. You only keep the weapons out of the law abiding citizens hands and criminals and nut jobs will always find a way to get them. Just the way it is..............................I am a firm believer in taking schools out of the "weapon free zone" for people that have a CCW. No, I don't think little Joey should be able to carry a knife on the grounds if he wants to, screw him. I'm talking about people that have went through the process to get a CCW and this would further allow the argument on whether to arm teachers or not to happen. It's already happened in a small district in Texas, but they started talking about it last October! I believe that teachers should be allowed to carry if the district allows it, state law allows it, and they attend the proper training to show they are proficient with their firearm. It's the ONLY way to help stop the violence on some level and even then, it won't stop it completely. There are several layers to stop these events from occurring and it starts with our nations mental health care. So start there as that has long-term effects, you might see the effects 10 to 15 years down the road or longer, but our mental health care is a joke! People that have CCW's aren't the ones shooting places up and doing a bunch of stupid crap. They've done the things necessary to be able to carry their weapons to protect themselves and their families and aren't going to screw that up. I would much rather have a teacher there with a weapon that can do something about it than wait the few minutes for a cop to show up and do something about it. You can save A LOT of lives in those few minutes....................In Sandyville from the time the officers were dispatched to the time they arrived was 3 minutes, at 5 minutes they were notified of shooting occurring in the office and at 7 minutes the event was over.

No matter how well this idea is presented or supported by facts, there are a huge number of people who are simply not mentally wired to accept the argument.

 

For some, the accepted truth is : Gun crimes are caused by guns...if you reduce the number of guns, gun crimes will also be reduced. To maximize the effect, just bans guns altogether. Going the opposite direction, and increasing the number of people with guns can only lead to more gun crimes/death.

 

It's simple logic which requires the very least amount of faith to be put into their fellow citizens.

 

Unfortunately it also is the position with the least regard for individual freedom/responsibility.

Couldn't agree with you more...........

[Conga3]

Judging by your user name I'm assuming you're a teacher. How would you feel about yourself or a few of your colleagues being trained with a pistol and being armed at school? Think it's too risky?

 

I don't think it is too risky, I just think that it is not realistic. I think a lot of people have this romanticized idea of what it would be like: Bad guy comes in, pulls out his gun and is ready to start shooting up the place but the hero teacher pulls out his/her piece first, takes aim and BAM, takes down the would be killer.

 

I just don't think it is realistic. I mean, cops that are on the job for 30 years often times never pull their gun out once, most people that do use a gun in the "line of fire" are not going to be such an amazing shot that they kill the person with one shot, it would probably end up killing some innocent kid. Plus, I mean, you are really asking a lot of the teacher too. You are basically asking them "Will you take a life", I don't know, it just seems like that would be really really tough.

 

I really don't have a good answer for it. Sorry!

It's not a very romantic concept at all. It's as simple as a deadly "threat" in responsible hands is used to repel or otherwise subdue an attacker by whatever means necessary and called for.

 

It doesn't have to play out how you envision it in some sort of "Hollywood" style gun battle. It'd probably look something more like this :

 

 

 

Some people freeze. Some people take cover. Some people make poor decisions and make themselves more likely to get injured.

 

It only takes one in most cases to have their sh*t together.

 

But, not everyone is capable of this sort of bravery.. you are right.

 

So I propose some legislation. A reduction in requirements for teaching positions in our public schools for former military and police officers, and a preference/quota for their hire.

 

But good luck getting the teachers unions to back that proposal.

 

It is romanticized, just like the wild west, where in reality there were about 5-6 gun fights, we pretend like they happened all the time. A teacher, teaching in a class when some dude kicks open his/her door and starts shooting up, is probably not going to become your version of Doc Holliday.

 

Now, as far as the teachers unions, they are not strong, nor do they dictate the teaching requirements needed, that is the state (in most cases) and in some regards the federal government.

 

That video, that is about burglary! Dudes are not coming into a school, guns blazing, to ROB! They are coming there to kill, totally different, a guy coming in and start to shoot kids, much much different. It is not like the teacher would be in class, teaching, marker in one hand...gun in the other.

 

Look, it could be calm and cool but I can tell you from my experience that it probably would not be. I would hope you are right, so that the "bad guy" gets his!

 

I must not have made my point clear or you wouldn't be pointing out the video is of a robbery...and that's my bad for failing to communicate over the internets.

 

My point was : While you're contending "success" of the teachers repelling or putting down a shooter would hinge on some sort of "Western Movie" style of gun battle that others are "romantically" envisioning, I'm contending it'd be more like the video...where a threat is met with someone with the capability of repelling or stopping them amid the general chaos. Success could come in different forms and is certainly not incumbent on a teacher being able to stop the first shot of the shooter.

 

I measure "success" by saving even a single innocent life.

 

Success could also be measured in the deterrence factor, although that's harder to quantify.

[teachercd]

Fair enough!

[GM_Tood]

If I had to guess, they (gov't) will tag certain types of guns "military grade". That tag will make them and the ammo unavailable for the common citizen. I have my fair share of legally obtained firearms, and have seen the effects of the "military grade" firearms can make on mass quantity of targets (as I am sure some other posters here military/police have). Does any common citizen need one of these types of weapons? IMO, no. I can/will try protect my household/family with my CCW 9mm handgun and/or my 12gu shotgun I use for hunting.

 

I wouldn't have an issue with the "military grade" ban if the gov't did it.