Why do you think a homicidal/suicidal student would be deterred?

_________________
RIP ROAD WOES 12/2/2012

There would be a deterrent value to armed teachers, if it was common knowledge that some teachers at a specific school were armed. These mass shooters choose targets they believe are completely unarmed. Just because they are crazy doesn't mean they are stupid. They always have a plan of some sort. If it was well known that a school has trained, armed volunteer teachers, ready to respond in seconds to the sound of gunfire, wannabe shooters will pick a different target.

I think Beers and Sailor are both wrong when they say a teacher couldn't be as effective as law enforcement at stopping a shooter in the middle of shooting people. I believe they could be a helluva lot more effective than law enforcement. In this most recent debacle, law enforcement responded in ~8 minutes. Teachers could have responded in ~8 seconds. (Cops who are actually on the school grounds when shooting starts can obviously have a similarly good response time, but that has its own set of headaches.)

There is a prevalent attitude among many here that teachers can't be effective armed 1st responders. Teachers not only can't be trained, but any training they previously had inexplicably evaporates the moment they enter a classroom. I don't know why some people here have such a low opinion of teachers. That position has no foundation in reason or reality, it is simply the product of an anti-gun bias. And apart from unions, I have never seen this extreme delineation between roles in any other context.

_________________

In response to both these posts, the shooter in Newtown shit himself and put a bullet between his ears the second he heard police closing in. I'd bet money he would not have attempted what he did at that school if there were known concealed carriers were already on the premises.



You're correct in what you're saying, but that's not exactly what I was saying when referring to their efficiency. Cops have a whole number of tactics and training they can use to respond to a shooter. They are more adept at clearing rooms, etc. That's more what I was talking about, rather than the overall picture. If you add response time, which we really have to, it gives a great edge to concealed carriers already there. And I'm not really addressing their shooting abilities, just law enforcement's tactical training. Other than that, there's a lot pointing to the effectiveness of a teacher already in place.

_________________
I blog, I tweet. When I'm not writing or goofing around on Seahawks.NET.

Really? The rambling in my head typed onto a computer screen with less than perfect paragraph/sentance structure/spelling has nothing to do with whether or not I am intelligent. Something I never claimed to be. In fact, I clearly stated that it was my opinion. Neither does the above quote have anything to do with whether or not my point is valid. Also, I see you address my inclusion of cruise missiles, but made no mention of the other things I brought up, or things I didn't. Either way, my position remains.

Do I believe it's possible for this country to tear itself apart through an armed uprising of it's citizens? Yes I do. Do I agree that the people could be victorious in such an endeavor? Nope. The deck is stacked the other way in form of technology and advanced weaponry. Yes, this country was founded in such a manner. Back when a musket was a musket, a cannon was a connon and a bayonette change meant gaining the initiative. Not gonna happen in this day and age.

I assume watching armed rebellion topple foreign governments has given you hope that such an action might be possible here. Something to remember before you get all hot in the pants and think your "rebel uprising" will succeed: those Governments were not this one. Those Governments were not nearly this well equipped or well trained. Those Governments were never really in a posotion to govern those people except by instilling fear in the population. For all of those reasons they were bound to fall. And for refereance, when I refer to this Government I refer to the Government itself, the US Military, all Federal Law Enforcement Agencies, as well as most State and Local Law Enforcement Agencies. Not to mention a large number of Government enablers and sympathizers.

In summary, if destruction of America is your aim, you may be in luck. Just make sure you are backed by a sufficient number of your fellow tin foil hat wearing types, otherwise it will all be for naught. Other then that you should get used to the idea of VOTING if you want change.

Once again, this is simply my opinion and nothing more. Feel free to point out my gramatical errors, poor spelling and whatever else makes you feel better about being you.

_________________
Position Before Submission

I can't believe this coat hanger abortion of a thread is still going.

When two firefighters on Christmas eve are killed it will fan the flames no matter what your position is.

We must install police officers in every home... I'm still working on this idea, but I am certain MORE GUNS ARE THE SOLUTION

Fire trucks with not just water cannon, but normal cannons?

_________________
“If somebody thinks they're a hedgehog, presumably you just give them a mirror and a few pictures of hedgehogs and tell them to sort it out for themselves.”

Fire tanks.

WTF!!! Anyone who things we can put an armed guard at schools to stop the violence is a numskull. I can't believe the NRA spent a whole week spinning their wheels and that was their finest retort. One armed guard at Columbine would have been the first target by the two kids playing a real life video game at Columbine. It's just upping the difficulty level to nightmare. If you truly want to defend a school, from an attack of two armed attackers, you'd need at least 3-4 times the attackers to effectively defend. And considering our law enforcement and professionals guards are severely outgunned by the civilians, and the fact the attackers have the element of surprise on their side, you'd need a good 10 defenders to truly thwart any attacks on a typical high school sized campus. Remember our beloved General MacArthur was defeated in the Philippines by 1/5 of the attackers even though he was dug in with a very strong defense, the element of surprise is a powerful advantage. And despite all of this, even if we funded and defended all of our schools, all we've done is hardened these targets and the attackers would go elsewhere... I was a children's museum today, at least 100 kids, no guards and only a handful of employees... you cannot defend every target.

I am not against the 2nd amendment, I do believe we have the right to own and defend ourselves. But do we have to defend ourselves with AK-47's??? Their horrible at home defense as they will kill anyone in adjacent rooms, houses and possibly neighborhoods. There is no reason to think you need an assault rifle and citizens should never have more firepower than the police...

I'm not making this a partisan issue, because frankly speaking, I am so middle of the road both dems and reps hate me. We should evolve as a people beyond this two party system which is killing our progress. As we fight over partisan issues about labels like communist, socialist and whatnot, the Chinese have actually evolved and progressed with their own hybrid Communist/Capitalist system.

This issue is for my children and their future. Facts are facts when used with comparable countries. It is true in the most evolved and effective countries where law and order does exist, the numbers do not lie. Our right to bear arms is costing us a lot of unnecessary deaths.

I understand and emphasize with gun owners fearing their right to own their guns might be abolished. But why so much fear? Don't you realize that by doing nothing after the Columbine, Virginia Tech, Sandy Hooks, we are accepting these as commonplace? Can we open our minds a little, go for some compromise, make an effort? Don't be so skeptical that it won't work because of <insert argument here>... or it didn't work with this because <insert rebuttal>... Our country was not built on the principals of not trying... we have to try to improve...

How about a few compromises like... require much more stringent background checks to own a firearm? I bought a handgun when I was 20 and I do not recall anything hard about it. Granted I was a US Army military intelligence soldier, but still, I bought it and had no problems. I personally bought it because I was being deployed on a unique mission as advanced deployment to Bosnia and didn't know what to expect. It was an option to protect myself so I took it. In Japan the requirements are outlandish. Maybe too far, but shouldn't it be? We are talking about arming someone with a deadly weapon and right now in America we have stricter requirements to drive a car (drivers school, eye tests, drivers test and written test).

I think another outstanding compromise would be to REQUIRE gun safe ownership. I do not own stock in any of these gun safe companies, but why not require the means to store the weapon before we can acquire it? The cost of such safe is usually greater than the firearm itself, but by making it a prerequisite you will enforce more responsible ownership. When I was in the Army, my gun was always stored in the armory. When I was living with my Dad, it was stored in his gun safe. When I lived alone, it was in my nightstand... and I'll tell you those were actually my most restless times as I didnt always trust myself, or my crazy drunk-ass brother who knew it was there.

I have no idea what the laws are, but if a bar owner serves too much alcohol to a customer and they kill someone on their drive home, the bar is partially responsible. I think very tight and strict laws must also apply to gun ownership. If my gun gets stolen from me, I am responsible for whatever carnage it causes in its lifetime. At least until I've reported it stolen. Most of the guns on the streets used by the "bad guys" are stolen from good law abiding citizens.

Lastly, there is no need for assault weapons. These are developed, designed and engineered to kill people, lots of people, and to penetrate armor and hard targets. These serve no purpose to defend your home, nor kill game. Sure they can do both, but there are better tools for the job. A shotgun works great to defend your home, a handgun is also good in close quarters, but a cumbersome AR-15 is horrible and the small caliber is not the best for stopping a close intruder.

On Facebook this week, there is that nice little graphic going around showing stick figures of good guys and bad guys, and the advantage bad guys have with guns and good guys do not. There is a little truth to it, bad guys will always be bad and break the rules. The problem is, most of the attacks that we are talking about are conducted by good guys. The victims at Sandy Hook, Columbine, Virginia Tech were killed by legally defined "good" guys with access to legal weapons. If those were locked up... well they could have been prevented. Beyond those headliner tragedies are murders that occur all the time by legal weapons and those are more common than not, good guy vs good guy. The bad guy typically goes for other bad guys, although there is some occasional collateral damage. Watch the Dateline or the First 48 for ten episodes and most of them are case studies for gun control. The real bad guys will always have guns and they typically kill eachother. The other ones are good guys, who have access to guns and lose it for a moment, next thing you know someone is dead and two lives and families are destroyed. My brother once begged me for my gun because his wife was sleeping with his best friend... what if I gave it to him, or what if he got it from me? I dunno, but thankfully he didn't and now even though they are divorced, we are all still cordial and have moved on.

Sure idiots kill people... but idiots with unnecessary guns kill unnecessary people. "Gun control" does not mean we are socialist, or we are taking everything away. Let's just improve the system...

_________________
"Hard work beats talent when talent fails to hard work"

I don't usually comment on these types of threads but I will this time

1. Barbara Boxer the CA Senator proposed placing armed guards ( National Guard ) 3 days after the shooting
2. Bill Clinton in 2000 said he wanted armed guards in schools , but could not get it through
3. The Police to respond to the shooting took 20 minutes
4. The Columbine Shooting happened with the Assault Weapons ban in place
And how did it help?
5. The Justice Department in a report on the effects of the Assault Weapons ban said that the law did nothing..Nada...Zip
http://p.washingtontimes.com/news/2004/ ... /?page=all

The only thing that could work is armed guards. The total number of Homicides since 1994 is less than 1/2 today. That is with more many more guns in the wild. The total number of gun related mass shooting is still a very small number. As much as we would like to stop all murders it seems not to be possible.

The effect of removing all guns? The estimates buy the Justice Dept are guns are used to prevent 1 million crimes a year. Do you think if we removed guns from Law abiding citizens it would go up or down?

Colleges and Universities have Law Enforcement as do Malls, Banks and many other things. Why is it folly to do the same for our kids? Why have all these crimes happened in Gun Free Zones? ( it has gone up 4x since we established them )

Because they are cowards that do the crimes they don't want to get hurt , and if they end it they will do it themselves. They don't seem to want trials , hate and ridicule

I guess any time some one says something with a lead in like that, the argument is over, right?

_________________
Talent can get you to the playoffs.
It takes character to win when you get there.

We tried the AWB
we tried gun free zones
We tried cities with almost outright bans

What is left other than fighting back and being hard targets ?

Locking doors and hiding in corners is a strategy? Unarmed rushing a shooter ?

This is a joke right? I mean you do realize the root of the problem isn't that we aren't fighting back it's that we're arming the enemy? There are plenty of guns in the US both legal and illegal. Guns don't prevent violence they are violence.

_________________
RIP ROAD WOES 12/2/2012

_________________
Member formally known as AC59

Looks like we need more knife control.

_________________
Feel free to contact me if you need legal assistance. I have a great lawyer that helped me with an ex who violated my privacy and kept harassing me on MySpace and Facebook. He's very good. And there is legal precedent. - linuxpro

He is hold back the legion of boom - skater18000

We need violence control, but violence is going to happen. Maybe the government can at least issue expensive permits to regulate it.

That's like we saying we need to ban dying instead of improving medicine and science to extend life.

_________________
RIP ROAD WOES 12/2/2012

'S okay. Obama is going to make it all better for us.

http://www.cnn.com/2013/01/09/politics/ ... l?on.cnn=1

_________________
I blog, I tweet. When I'm not writing or goofing around on Seahawks.NET.

The notion of (ab)using the executive order to circumvent what should be squarely in the hands of Congress is abominable. I suspect the first thing they will target are states with the so-called "gun show loophole", which allows private sellers (individuals with no license to sell for profit) to transfer their firearms to another individual without paperwork or background checks. They may also try to establish some sort of moratorium on the transfer of so-called "assault rifles", which is just a feel-good measure to make it look like the administration is getting tough on gun crime, despite "assault rifles" not having much of an appreciable impact on these statistics.

There are those who think that some sort of door-to-door confiscation effort may arise as a result of an executive order, though I just don't see it. There are many, many, many people in this country from whom they would be more likely to confiscate the bullets (as they're flying through the air), than they would the rifles. Regardless, this is a disturbing trend as the purpose of the executive order should be as a response to emergencies, not making policy changes at large, in spite of Congressional opinion on the matter.

The worst part about this whole ordeal is that the Sandy Hook tragedy is being used as a convenient excuse to make it seem like there is a big problem when the facts and statistics simply do not correlate. Millions of this nation's most naive, impressionable young people are taking the bait, hook, line, and sinker, and they will be the ones at fault once our 2nd Amendment protections finally collapse.

_________________
Feel free to contact me if you need legal assistance. I have a great lawyer that helped me with an ex who violated my privacy and kept harassing me on MySpace and Facebook. He's very good. And there is legal precedent. - linuxpro

He is hold back the legion of boom - skater18000