Notices
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 100 of 200
Like Tree24Likes

Thread: "Kill List" found outside Texas Junior high school

  1. #1 "Kill List" found outside Texas Junior high school 
    has lost interest seagypsy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    3,107
    Kill list found outside local junior high school.

    My daughter brought this to my attention. She mentioned that she has friends from all over the US on tumblr and many are claiming that "kill lists" were being found outside their schools as well. I haven't found any reports supporting claims of this other than this one school local to me.

    Since I can only confirm one story as being more than a rumor, I am assuming some kid thought it would be funny in the aftermath of the Connecticut shooting to put a little scare into his/her school. Obviously the police have to err on the side of caution and it would be foolish not to. but the likelihood of a real threat, IMO, just seems out there a bit. What intended killer leaves his to do list outside the very location of the intended victims if he/she actually intends to follow through? Though this could be a clever decoy. If the police have their attention elsewhere, they may be more likely to be able to pull off some crime somewhere else.

    But if this is some joke it is really sad that someone out there thinks this kind of thing is funny. If they get caught, the joke will be on them. as any terroristic threat is taken very seriously and the " I was only kidding around" defense has never worked AFAIK.

    Interestingly enough though, the report says that AISD sent home a four paragraph letter home to parents explaining what happened. But I never got any letter via either of my kids. Which is very upsetting.


    An example of rumoring of this type hitting Connecticutt, as if they need anymore scares right now.


    Speaking badly about people after they are gone and jumping on the bash the band wagon must do very well for a low self-esteem.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Forum Masters Degree MrMojo1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    South Florida, USA
    Posts
    618
    Interesting article, but its small potatoes at this point. There is a story where a an 11 year boy claims his parents sent him to school with a .22 hand gun to protect himself. Before the school day was done, he was already threatening to kill his classmates. If his claims are true, then his parents are idiots who own guns.

    Sixth-grader in Utah brings gun to school to avoid Connecticut-style attack




    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    According to the article you linked, the police cleared the parents, saying the boys claims were untrue.

    Horsley said the student obtained the gun at home from an extended family member who moved out of the family’s house last week.

    Previous reports indicated that the student claimed his parents told him to bring the gun to school for protection. Horsley said those claims are not accurate and said the parents have been "very cooperative.”
    When I was a kid, I had access to firearms, including one .38 special and a .44 mag.
    Not only did I have access, I handled the .44 magnum from age 11 til 18 on a regular basis- see it was one of three firearms that was not stored in the gun safe.
    It stayed under my grandfathers pillow.
    Helping my grandmother make the bed, I had to routinely move it around. Never once did I point it at anyone. The routine was to lift the pillow, observe that the safety was on, pick up the weapon properly, set it within a cupboard with the muzzle facing outward toward the wall.
    Help replace sheets, put bedspread back on, then look to see where grandmother was- when clear, remove the pistol from the cupboard keeping muzzle pointed away from everyone at all times, put the pillow back down.

    I knew to do it this way from having watched my grandfather help her make the bed, which he did quite matter of fact. My grandmother watched how I mimicked and complimented me later for doing it properly, which I then maintained every time I gave her a hand after.

    I never really thought about it until just now, as I wondered how a child might get his hands on the weapon- then my brain said, "Bonk- Duh!"
    It simply never occurred to me to do that as a kid.
    My grandfather would have killed me.

    From age 6 onward, I'd been trained- repeatedly- in firearms safety and handling. By the time I was 11, I was pretty well conditioned in it.
    The fault I suggest of the parents in this is lacking teaching the child properly.
    At 11 years old, I was given my first firearm as a Christmas present. It was a .22 Marlin. My first rifle, and the first I ever used at the range before graduating upwards. This rifle was kept in the gun safe the vast majority of the time and only taken out when we went to the range. But again, in hindsight, it could have been leaning behind my bedroom door for all it mattered. It simply never occurred to me to play with it. I knew it wasn't a toy and I never handled it as one.
    If kids at school teased me, I have no memory of thinking about running home to get it- not once. The only reaction I had was to challenge kids to a fistfight. Because that's the proper response; to assert dominance. Thump 'em.

    So, let's see... in a modern society, people shun reality. They shun anything that is called negative, whether it is or isn't. Everything's about political correctness, these days. Gotta coddle peoples self esteem.
    So, kids aren't being taught, anymore. They're having their esteem enforced, instead.
    When a dude goes loco, sure they lock him away, but society blames the freaking inanimate objects! What?
    God forbid that we blame our society- that we confront that our very own selves went wonky- that we failed to do our own jobs properly.
    Look into the psychology, without denial, don't point the finger at scapegoats and choosing inanimate objects as scapegoats is absurd.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    has lost interest seagypsy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    3,107
    kids in south carolina get in trouble for making a kill list

    Kids are so predictable. Why do some children think this sort of thing is a joke. At least it gives more hope that the kill list found in my kids school district was a prank as I suspected. This is why we need to spank our children.
    Speaking badly about people after they are gone and jumping on the bash the band wagon must do very well for a low self-esteem.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Forum Professor jrmonroe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    1,444
    To me, leaving "kill lists" around is like pulling a fire alarm.

    Quote Originally Posted by Neverfly View Post
    I handled the .44 magnum from age 11 til 18 on a regular basis- see it was one of three firearms that was not stored in the gun safe.
    It stayed under my grandfathers pillow.
    Helping my grandmother make the bed, I had to routinely move it around. Never once did I point it at anyone. The routine was to lift the pillow, observe that the safety was on, pick up the weapon properly, set it within a cupboard with the muzzle facing outward toward the wall.
    Help replace sheets, put bedspread back on, then look to see where grandmother was- when clear, remove the pistol from the cupboard keeping muzzle pointed away from everyone at all times, put the pillow back down.
    How could you tell that the safety was on?
    Grief is the price we pay for love. (CM Parkes) Our postillion has been struck by lightning. (Unknown) War is always the choice of the chosen who will not have to fight. (Bono) The years tell much what the days never knew. (RW Emerson) Reality is not always probable, or likely. (JL Borges)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    Quote Originally Posted by jrmonroe View Post
    How could you tell that the safety was on?
    Because there's a clear switch for it, with a red dot.
    How do you know when any switch is in position? You look at it and see it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,309
    Similar upbringing. Dad had whole set of guns from a 22 pistol, 30-30, 22 semi-auto and bolt action, 30-06, 12 gauge and 4-10 shotguns and 7.7mm WWII Japanese sniper rifle. All were tucked into one close with two shelves full of ammunition. From my earliest days I was around guns, firing them in the back yard and when older hunting rabit and deer. My dad taught be safety in a hundred lessons and before I turned about 13, I know I'd get my ass beat if I touched them. I shot expert on my first Army range and continued to until about 40 when my eyes started to fuzz up those 250 and 300 m targets.

    I think gun safety should be taught in every school--just like we're supposed to teach the other parts of our Constitutional rights.

    That being said, I think we look at hard at large capacity magazines and stop screwing around and put background checks in place before anyone buys guns. I don't see any use for handguns--they are too dangerous for homes and aren't a credible deterrent for a tyrannical government.
    --

    Yes the list is scarry, but I think a lot of crazies might be considering a copycat incident. Glad school is out most places until after the holidays.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    I think gun safety should be taught in every school--just like we're supposed to teach the other parts of our Constitutional rights.
    Agreed! It's a mystery why it isn't. Back in the old days, shooting was a sport (Target, not animal) in schools and they held competitions.
    Those days are long gone. Even though they didn't shoot eachother.
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    That being said, I think we look at hard at large capacity magazines and stop screwing around and put background checks in place before anyone buys guns. I don't see any use for handguns--they are too dangerous for homes and aren't a credible deterrent for a tyrannical government.
    They are a great deterrent against rapists and burglars- the right size instead of an awkward or clumsy rifle or shotgun when in tight quarters and close range. They are maneuverable and lighter in weight and effective for any woman against a rapist, even if she's a merciful shooter aiming for kneecaps.

    Why only allow the bad guys to have access to them?

    Pack some heat and make them think twice before pulling their nature in your own home- or against your own family.

    Take it from a guy whose made a living with tools- You need the right tool for the job, else just screw the job up.
    gonzales56 and MrMojo1 like this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,309
    the right size instead of an awkward or clumsy rifle or shotgun when in tight quarters and close range.


    Too much Hollywood?
    Shotguns and light rifles are much preferred to handguns in most close quarters fights--and that's how every military in the world sees it as well and how they all train (as I did many times) (the 9mm was a backup weapon even in the tightest rooms). Handguns are inaccurate, even skilled shooters miss more than half the time under actual shooting conditions; by far more prone to accidents--killing more of their owners or their family members than assailants and more than any other weapon. They are also nearly useless for meeting the founding fathers intent of being a credible deterrent for tyrannical governments.

    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    Shotguns and light rifles are much preferred to handguns in most close quarters fights--and that's how every military in the world sees it as well and how they all train (as I did many times) (the 9mm was a backup weapon even in the tightest rooms). Handguns are inaccurate, even skilled shooters miss more than half the time under actual shooting conditions; by far more prone to accidents--killing more of their owners or their family members than assailants and more than any other weapon. They are also nearly useless for meeting the founding fathers intent of being a credible deterrent for tyrannical governments.
    Every Military which assigns the M-9 to all its officers and the entire Police force, right?

    Guess they didn't get the memo.

    Well, Lynx, we're both experienced military personnel, and we disagree.
    I've carried the M-203, M-16, M-4 and the M-9.
    When it came to marksmanship, I preferred the M-4. But when it came to something I could draw quickly and maneuver around in tight quarters, the M-9 had no contest.
    Now, I agree that Highly Trained Tactical Officers can use a shotgun or tactical rifle in close quarters- again - Highly Trained.
    Most ladies out there fending off muggers/rapists and the like are not Highly Trained Tactical Officers.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,309
    Every Military which assigns the M-9 to all its officers and the entire Police force, right?
    No. It was the same way when the military carried 0.45 M911s when I joined. Same before that as well. It was always a sidearm, used if your primary weapon failed even when clearing buildings.

    The American pistol infatuation and supposed effectiveness as close defense is mostly propaganda by the gun industry and reinforced by bad Hollywood films. When I get asked...I always direct people to a semi-auto shotgun, a 12 gauge for large people, a 20 gauge for smaller folks--they are far superior than any handgun for defending the home.

    You comments about training are also wrong. It takes much more training to use a handgun safely and effectively than any shot gun--way more.
    Last edited by Lynx_Fox; December 22nd, 2012 at 01:07 PM.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    No. It was the same way when the military carried 0.45 M911s when I joined. Same before that as well. It was always a sidearm, used if your primary weapon failed even when clearing buildings.
    Maybe something changed in the last thirty years. In the U.S. Army, the officers are assigned the M-9 alone, not as a back up.

    Police use the Beretta as the primary weapon, while the assault rifle or shotgun is left in the vehicle.
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    The American pistol infatuation and supposed effectiveness as close defense is mostly propaganda by the gun industry and reinforced by bad Hollywood films. When I get asked...I always direct people to a semi-auto shotgun, a 12 gauge for large people, a 20 gauge for smaller folks--they are far superior than any handgun for defending the home.
    Superior in that they require less aim- I agree with that. But I repeat, these are not highly trained tactical officers.
    Propaganda? Whether marketing counts as propaganda isn't a semantics argument I necessarily care to engage in. But let's be blunt... If this is going to go down a road of Hollywood working with arms makers to promote pistols, in spite of all the other evidence, let's save it.
    What you're putting forth is your own opinion of a preference of firearms. You cannot back that up with a C.T. simply because editors at Guns and Ammo and civilian police/Military armory officers disagree with you.

    The long barrel of a shotgun or rifle can be grabbed by your opponent and swung aside in close quarters. Not so with a pistol.
    For a lady defending herself from an attacker, being able to swing the weapon out of his reach or grasp is crucial.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,309
    Maybe something changed in the last thirty years. In the U.S. Army, the officers are assigned the M-9 alone, not as a back up.
    Dude, I retired less than two years ago, starting at a private and retired as a major. No once was I assigned just an 9mm. There was a few Tables of Allowances back in the 80's which had BN commanders and staff, not Soldiers who'd be doing room clearing, where assigned only 9mms.

    And we can contrive all sorts of scenarios about grabbing shotguns, or grabbing an extended set of hands shakily holding a pistol, and whatnot, but the fact remains that every military as well as law enforcement units first choice for close quarters is a shotgun or light rifle over a handgun.

    civilian police/Military armory officers disagree with you.

    Some might, but I challenge you to find one of thier published doctrines which suggest pistols as the first choice. I'll provide just a few that mention rifles, shotguns and nary even a mention of handguns.
    Ranger Handbook, see chapter 14: http://www.fas.org/irp/doddir/army/ranger.pdf
    Or Infantry mans Field manual on combat in built up areas: fm-90-10-1 (think it's still current).
    Or you can watch 10th Mountain go through a room clearing training exercise.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K5OctwulUiM
    Or a SWAT team: SWAT Clearing the Room Training - YouTube

    I could go on and on. Pistols are almost never the preferred weapon in close fights. A shot gun is safer, has a lot more deterrent capability, far more effective if that fails, and easier to train someone to use. Usually the only ones telling you otherwise are trying too sell one too you--and they are nearly all badly overpriced.



    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    No once was I assigned just an 9mm.
    Then we have a difference of observation, don't we? I was assigned the M-9, 4 clips, 4 grenades and basic compliment in combat zone and in combat. So was everyone else on my team- about forty people. Please explain this screw up.
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    And we can contrive all sorts of scenarios about grabbing shotguns, or grabbing an extended set of hands shakily holding a pistol,
    Speaking of contrived...
    Shakily?
    Really?
    Let's examine Real Life.
    S.G. struggles with a rifle or a shotgun. Their weight and length are an inhibition because of the strength of her wrists. With a .38, however, she excels. There's no contrived shakiness, there. I'm not shaky with a pistol- even the Desert Eagle gave me a run for the money, but I've only ever held one a few times (Range only).
    My marksmanship with a pistol was dwarfed by my marksmanship with the M-4. This is true. But as with anything, there are pros and cons. Marksmanship gets traded for maneuverability and ease of access to the weapon, along with difficulty for the perp to disarm you.
    In order to effectively arm her, then, she's best off with the .38. You're making way too many assumptions, maybe thinking that Everyone is a burly man, highly trained as a tactical officer. No. Civilians have more options with less training.
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    and whatnot, but the fact remains that every military as well as law enforcement units first choice for close quarters is a shotgun or light rifle over a handgun.
    No, it isn't. It's first choice in Elite Task Force and for good reason. But that's specialty. In every day operations, the pistol is preferred.
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    Some might, but I challenge you to find one of thier published doctrines which suggest pistols as the first choice. I'll provide just a few that mention rifles, shotguns and nary even a mention of handguns.
    Rangers- again- Highly Trained Tactical Officers- burly men. Irrelevant.
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    SWAT Clearing the Room Training
    Sigh... See above...
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    I could go on and on.
    I've noticed and not a bit of it is relevant. Let's see, I've pointed out that in Real Life situations for Civilians, women guarding against a mugger or an attacker, a small pistol is much easier to deal with the a bulky rifle slung over her shoulder (Have fun with that at the office.) It is nowhere near so easy to grab the lengthy weapon and disarm her, she has room to move and struggle. In many civilians case, a pistol is far more effective because they are not tactical officers. That you keep providing citations for those that are show how out of touch you are with the reality of this topic. Those weapons are too long and too bulky for effective tight range use and only men and women that are highly trained in close quarters combat can be expected to wield them effectively. Yes, they are preferred for those people. Because for them, the butt of the weapon is effective, hand to hand combat is trained, they are taught how to prevent being disarmed and to maneuver with bulky weaponry. The common civilian is not and cannot afford that kind of extensive training.
    We are not talking about SWAT Teams. Yes, you and I might prefer a short handle (sawed off) shotgun. S.G. wouldn't be anywhere near as effective with that as she would a pistol.
    I've pointed out that police primarily use their Beretta. They do not approach the vast majority of situations with a shotgun. This happens when an elite force gets called in or an officer is under heavy fire. For most situations, the pistol is more effective and maneuverable.
    That's why they don't walk up to your vehicle with one (or a rifle) slung over their shoulder.
    Now, do they? No. They walk up- hand on holstered pistol. Trained to be at the ready, but carrying the most effective weapon for the task at hand.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    Pistols are almost never the preferred weapon in close fights.
    By some for certain situations, when their strong people and highly trained.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,309
    Then we have a difference of observation, don't we? I was assigned the M-9, 4 clips, 4 grenades and basic compliment in combat zone and in combat. So was everyone else on my team- about forty people. Please explain this screw up.


    You have a bad S4...lol?

    Honestly you haven't put up any credible argument, nor supported that argument with any official position from a credible organization for handguns being better than a shot gun to support it.

    That fact that you continue to argue that handguns, which are statistically more than ten time more dangerous to their owners than to assailants somehow required less training than rifles and shotguns is laughable.

    --
    But we are getting nowhere.

    --
    Do you have any objections to background checks or restrictions of high capacity magazines? Two reasonable precautions staunchly resisted by the NRA.



    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    You have a bad S4...lol?
    Got me there- I can't argue with that...

    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    Honestly you haven't put up any credible argument, nor supported that argument with any official position from a credible organization for handguns being better than a shot gun to support it.
    Every argument I've put up is more than credible and well supported by the very observations I've pointed out about Police armament you can walk out and see (Or to really test it, try doing 110mph on the highway). There's not a lot of paperwork on the objective "lack of training side" but plenty to be found on things like Assault tactics and SWAT teams. Sure, you'll be able to post links a lot faster than I can- but everything I've said can be tested and observed by anyone.
    Claiming it has no merit seems awfully weak when everyone on here has personally observed that police prefer the pistol to the bulky shotgun or rifle.
    Each tool has its place.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    That fact that you continue to argue that handguns, which are statistically more than ten time more dangerous to their owners than to assailants somehow required less training than rifles and shotguns is laughable.
    Can you really back this up? Because I went ahead and did a search on this and found stats all over the board depending on who was presenting them. I found one anti-gun site making strong claims, only to discover their statistics were based off of one region somewhere in Canada and did not match national statistics- nor did it really apply in the USA.
    I found another anti-gun site that claimed that there are 35,000 deaths per year due to firearm accidents. It claimed to add another half of that for injuries.
    That's the highest I've found and going by the CDC reports, it's too high. But let's give these guys the benefit of the doubt and assume that it really is that high a number and that isn't fluffed in any way...(Namely by deliberately including attempted suicides and successful suicides COUGH!)
    100,000+ assaults per year.
    35,000 "accidental" (suicide figures included to pad the number COUGH!) deaths.

    Laughable that 35,000 is a greater number than 100,000+?
    I agree-- that is very laughable. Whatever gave you that idea? No, it's smaller.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    But we are getting nowhere.
    I agree, but I think the reason why is because you have an agenda to push.
    You have a strong belief that you're trying to support. So far as such as to claim my arguments lack merit in spite of the glaring observations pointed out several times- In common and routine interactions, the pistol is preferred for light engagement and close quarters.
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    Do you have any objections to background checks or restrictions of high capacity magazines? Two reasonable precautions staunchly resisted by the NRA.
    My stated position is more extreme than where I'm willing to compromise....
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Forum Masters Degree MrMojo1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    South Florida, USA
    Posts
    618
    I would have to agree that a hand gun has more utility in a civilian environment, than a rifle/shotgun. You can take it to more places and conceal it better. Shotguns/rifles are able to provide more firepower and engage at a distance, but the duty weapon of vast majority of civilian law enforcement is a pistol sidearm. As far as I know, civilian police that engage in close quarters situations bring a combination of sub-machine guns, carbines, and shotguns. From what I've learned from family/friends in law enforcement, they would prefer a rifle than a shotgun in a armed conflict. It isn't always what you hit, but what happens when you miss.

    As for background checks, it is a reasonable precaution if the database is thorough with all pertinent information.

    High capacity magazine restrictions are a wasted effort. Anyone wanting to inflict a high volume of injury just needs more magazines or guns (e.g. Virginia Tech Massacre). I wonder if high capacity magazines are actually less of a threat since they are more likely to cause failure-to-feed issues as in the 2011 Tucson Arizona Shooting.

    The real issue here is the creativity of the human mind even when that mind has "gone crazy" and gun enthusiasts who are negligent when it comes to securing their weapons when storing them.
    Neverfly likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    Quote Originally Posted by MrMojo1 View Post
    I would have to agree that a hand gun has more utility in a civilian environment, than a rifle/shotgun. You can take it to more places and conceal it better. Shotguns/rifles are able to provide more firepower and engage at a distance, but the duty weapon of vast majority of civilian law enforcement is a pistol sidearm. As far as I know, civilian police that engage in close quarters situations bring a combinations sub-machine guns, carbines, and shotguns. From what I've learned from family/friends in law enforcement, they would prefer a rifle than a shotgun in a armed conflict. It isn't always what you hit, but what happens when you miss.
    This is where those pros and cons come into play and why application is important.
    It's why being one sided and exclusive about what tool is needed is frankly, nonsense.

    We could argue about whether I should use a torque wrench, impact wrench, box wrench, adjustable wrench or socket and ratchet on a car.
    Truth is, I'll use any or all for different applications, including close quarters where I'd rather use the impact wrench, but it won't fit.
    A torque wrench for tightening but not for loosening. I'll avoid an adjustable wrench as much as possible. So on and so on.
    An exclusive one sided opinion about the best tool for the job is very-- narrow.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,309
    As for background checks, it is a reasonable precaution if the database is thorough with all pertinent information.

    Ideally, but I'd say a clear standard enforced by an unbiased agency is even more important--so denial aren't based in local prejudice, or the whims of a person-- prior conviction for violent crimes, or court ordered psychiatric treatments should disqualify people from purchasing or possessing of a firearm for example.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    597
    It seems that the best weapon depends on the situation.

    Some situations require a concealable weapon such as backpacking in parks or sitting alone in an open house for a real estate agent.

    For home defense, the pump shotgun would be my first choice.

    Also, I have not personally used it, but my next handgun ,will probably have a guide rod laser. That should improve accuracy.

    I would favor laws requiring locking of weapons for storage in safes or with trigger locks to prevent access by children.

    When we were kids, we got our hands on the guns in every house. Fortunately, we were trained, and some of us were on rifle teams in grade school.

    I do remember on episode where a girlfriend picked up a shotgun and pointed at me "as a joke". People who know nothing about guns will do things like that.

    When I was getting ready to go on my first date with my wife (about 27 years ago) someone tried to break into my parent's house, and I ran them off with an assault rifle (HK 93). It never occurred to me to call the police.

    I will say that times have changed. In the old days, we had the guns but I don't remember any school shootings.

    It does seem that something is "different" in society. Personally, I think that the world is getting more unstable / violent, and these "events" are just "leaks" in a system that is approaching critical mass.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    Quote Originally Posted by dedo View Post
    I do remember on episode where a girlfriend picked up a shotgun and pointed at me "as a joke". People who know nothing about guns will do things like that.
    Nailed it.
    Quote Originally Posted by dedo View Post
    I will say that times have changed. In the old days, we had the guns but I don't remember any school shootings.
    Parenting changed. Attitudes changed.
    Quote Originally Posted by dedo View Post
    It does seem that something is "different" in society. Personally, I think that the world is getting more unstable / violent, and these "events" are just "leaks" in a system that is approaching critical mass.
    I think it's not so much that it's gotten more violent, but less defensive. Victims are easier to come by, and less likely to be armed than they used to be.
    In the old days, you had to watch your back.
    These days, it's TSA and someone else is expected to be at your beck and call for 9-11.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    has lost interest seagypsy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    3,107
    Quote Originally Posted by dedo View Post
    It seems that the best weapon depends on the situation.

    Some situations require a concealable weapon such as backpacking in parks or sitting alone in an open house for a real estate agent.

    For home defense, the pump shotgun would be my first choice.

    Also, I have not personally used it, but my next handgun ,will probably have a guide rod laser. That should improve accuracy.

    I would favor laws requiring locking of weapons for storage in safes or with trigger locks to prevent access by children.

    When we were kids, we got our hands on the guns in every house. Fortunately, we were trained, and some of us were on rifle teams in grade school.

    I do remember on episode where a girlfriend picked up a shotgun and pointed at me "as a joke". People who know nothing about guns will do things like that.

    When I was getting ready to go on my first date with my wife (about 27 years ago) someone tried to break into my parent's house, and I ran them off with an assault rifle (HK 93). It never occurred to me to call the police.

    I will say that times have changed. In the old days, we had the guns but I don't remember any school shootings.

    It does seem that something is "different" in society. Personally, I think that the world is getting more unstable / violent, and these "events" are just "leaks" in a system that is approaching critical mass.
    One thing that has changed is that parents are no longer allowed to be parents. I remember when, if I was out playing and did something wrong, any neighbor that saw me do it could spank me, then deliver me to my mom who would promptly spank me again.

    Now you can't even scold your child without CPS breathing down your neck.
    Speaking badly about people after they are gone and jumping on the bash the band wagon must do very well for a low self-esteem.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    597
    I agree with you guys that the government oversight has definitely gone more severe and "police stateish". When I was a kid, we got off with warnings for stuff that would put you on CNN now days.

    I am not sure about the lack of defense though. In Virginia where I live, we have concealed carry (CCI) permits. We have also had two shootouts between CCI holders in our area in the past 5 years which is pathetic. One was over "cutting in line", and the other was over some "parking garage" interaction.

    I assume everyone here is armed. In fact, I sometimes where a sport coat (unarmed) for the specific purpose of having people "think twice" about whether I am armed.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    has lost interest seagypsy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    3,107
    Quote Originally Posted by dedo View Post
    I agree with you guys that the government oversight has definitely gone more severe and "police stateish". When I was a kid, we got off with warnings for stuff that would put you on CNN now days.

    I am not sure about the lack of defense though. In Virginia where I live, we have concealed carry (CCI) permits. We have also had two shootouts between CCI holders in our area in the past 5 years which is pathetic. One was over "cutting in line", and the other was over some "parking garage" interaction.

    I assume everyone here is armed. In fact, I sometimes where a sport coat (unarmed) for the specific purpose so people will "think twice" about whether I am armed.
    Adult trantrums. We aren't allowed to spank our kids for falling out and having tantrums anymore so people never learn to get a handle on rejection or being told no when tehy want something. They all think they are entitled to whatever they want. couple that with guns and you get disaster. Wouldn't have any issues with guns if people had self control. something that is taught as a child more effectively through spanking for some, and stern words for others.
    Speaking badly about people after they are gone and jumping on the bash the band wagon must do very well for a low self-esteem.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    597
    Quote Originally Posted by seagypsy View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by dedo View Post
    I agree with you guys that the government oversight has definitely gone more severe and "police stateish". When I was a kid, we got off with warnings for stuff that would put you on CNN now days.

    I am not sure about the lack of defense though. In Virginia where I live, we have concealed carry (CCI) permits. We have also had two shootouts between CCI holders in our area in the past 5 years which is pathetic. One was over "cutting in line", and the other was over some "parking garage" interaction.

    I assume everyone here is armed. In fact, I sometimes where a sport coat (unarmed) for the specific purpose so people will "think twice" about whether I am armed.
    Adult trantrums. We aren't allowed to spank our kids for falling out and having tantrums anymore so people never learn to get a handle on rejection or being told no when tehy want something. They all think they are entitled to whatever they want. couple that with guns and you get disaster. Wouldn't have any issues with guns if people had self control. something that is taught as a child more effectively through spanking for some, and stern words for others.
    Interesting. That is an argument I have not heard before. I read one author, Staub, who did some work on group violence and suggested that corporal punishment might play a role. Your argument is the opposite.

    I don't know if there is any data to support either position.

    One thing I have noticed about "rejection" is that is clears the mind. Like if you get rejected by a group or something.
    Then your feelings are hurt but the mind is clear.

    I attribute my career to getting "rejected" by a girl I had a crush on in college. After she "rejected" me, I became driven and turned my life around.

    If you would like to dump me, then we could split the profits on any enterprise I start?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    has lost interest seagypsy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    3,107
    Quote Originally Posted by dedo View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by seagypsy View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by dedo View Post
    I agree with you guys that the government oversight has definitely gone more severe and "police stateish". When I was a kid, we got off with warnings for stuff that would put you on CNN now days.

    I am not sure about the lack of defense though. In Virginia where I live, we have concealed carry (CCI) permits. We have also had two shootouts between CCI holders in our area in the past 5 years which is pathetic. One was over "cutting in line", and the other was over some "parking garage" interaction.

    I assume everyone here is armed. In fact, I sometimes where a sport coat (unarmed) for the specific purpose so people will "think twice" about whether I am armed.
    Adult trantrums. We aren't allowed to spank our kids for falling out and having tantrums anymore so people never learn to get a handle on rejection or being told no when tehy want something. They all think they are entitled to whatever they want. couple that with guns and you get disaster. Wouldn't have any issues with guns if people had self control. something that is taught as a child more effectively through spanking for some, and stern words for others.
    Interesting. That is an argument I have not heard before. I read one author, Staub, who did some work on group violence and suggested that corporal punishment might play a role. Your argument is the opposite.

    I don't know if there is any data to support either position.

    One thing I have noticed about "rejection" is that is clears the mind. Like if you get rejected by a group or something.
    Then your feelings are hurt but the mind is clear.

    I attribute my career to getting "rejected" by a girl I had a crush on in college. After she "rejected" me, I became driven and turned my life around.

    If you would like to dump me, then we could split the profits on any enterprise I start?
    Can I just reject you instead? Dumping you would require that I date you first ...and my husband, Neverfly, may not respond in a positive manner to that.
    Speaking badly about people after they are gone and jumping on the bash the band wagon must do very well for a low self-esteem.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    Remember my political position on firearms, here.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    597
    Quote Originally Posted by seagypsy View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by dedo View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by seagypsy View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by dedo View Post
    I agree with you guys that the government oversight has definitely gone more severe and "police stateish". When I was a kid, we got off with warnings for stuff that would put you on CNN now days.

    I am not sure about the lack of defense though. In Virginia where I live, we have concealed carry (CCI) permits. We have also had two shootouts between CCI holders in our area in the past 5 years which is pathetic. One was over "cutting in line", and the other was over some "parking garage" interaction.

    I assume everyone here is armed. In fact, I sometimes where a sport coat (unarmed) for the specific purpose so people will "think twice" about whether I am armed.
    Adult trantrums. We aren't allowed to spank our kids for falling out and having tantrums anymore so people never learn to get a handle on rejection or being told no when tehy want something. They all think they are entitled to whatever they want. couple that with guns and you get disaster. Wouldn't have any issues with guns if people had self control. something that is taught as a child more effectively through spanking for some, and stern words for others.
    Interesting. That is an argument I have not heard before. I read one author, Staub, who did some work on group violence and suggested that corporal punishment might play a role. Your argument is the opposite.

    I don't know if there is any data to support either position.

    One thing I have noticed about "rejection" is that is clears the mind. Like if you get rejected by a group or something.
    Then your feelings are hurt but the mind is clear.

    I attribute my career to getting "rejected" by a girl I had a crush on in college. After she "rejected" me, I became driven and turned my life around.

    If you would like to dump me, then we could split the profits on any enterprise I start?
    Can I just reject you instead? Dumping you would require that I date you first ...and my husband, Neverfly, may not respond in a positive manner to that.
    Of course. Just a figure of speech.

    If you both reject me then that might double the effect.

    Would we have to split the profits three ways or two?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    As long as the three way is profits...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #30  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    597
    Quote Originally Posted by Neverfly View Post
    Remember my political position on firearms, here.
    Of course. In fact I was going to ask if I get an M4, for range work, what barrel length should I get?

    I had to sell my HK a long time ago to pay the rent.

    I am looking for motivation, not improper relationships.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #31  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    597
    Quote Originally Posted by Neverfly View Post
    As long as the three way is profits...
    Should we all go to the range together?

    Edit:

    Sorry, not implying anything threatening.

    You two would be a fun couple to have a beer with!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #32  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    Quote Originally Posted by dedo View Post
    Of course. In fact I was going to ask if I get an M4, for range work, what barrel length should I get?
    I prefer 14.5" because that's what I'm used to. I'm not a firearms expert though and Lynx Fox may have a better recommendation. Though you may get an earful about how M-4's are bad for you in the process.
    Quote Originally Posted by dedo View Post
    I am looking for motivation, not improper relationships.
    I know.
    Quote Originally Posted by dedo View Post
    Should we all go to the range together?
    I got the Dr. Pepper.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #33  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    597
    I will probably go with the 16 inch then to avoid having to get the Federal permit for short barreled rifle (SBR).

    I probably should move on it before they try to outlaw them in D.C.

    Funny about the Dr. Pepper. I was in NYC last week, and my last meal there was a street pretzel and a Dr. Pepper.

    Now that I am starting to like you guys, it is o.k. to dump (reject) me.

    Then we can all be rich and unhappy.

    I better hit the hay -- I think I am going over the edge.

    Good night.
    Last edited by dedo; December 22nd, 2012 at 11:44 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #34  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,309
    You won't notice that much difference other than the shorter barrel is a bit louder, has a little more recoil and slightly decreased effective range--and as you put it probably more administrative hassle.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #35  
    Forum Professor jrmonroe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    1,444
    Quote Originally Posted by Neverfly View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by jrmonroe View Post
    How could you tell that the safety was on?
    Because there's a clear switch for it, with a red dot.
    How do you know when any switch is in position? You look at it and see it.
    Is the safety the switch between the cylinder and the handle?
    Grief is the price we pay for love. (CM Parkes) Our postillion has been struck by lightning. (Unknown) War is always the choice of the chosen who will not have to fight. (Bono) The years tell much what the days never knew. (RW Emerson) Reality is not always probable, or likely. (JL Borges)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #36  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    Quote Originally Posted by jrmonroe View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Neverfly View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by jrmonroe View Post
    How could you tell that the safety was on?
    Because there's a clear switch for it, with a red dot.
    How do you know when any switch is in position? You look at it and see it.
    Is the safety the switch between the cylinder and the handle?
    LOL I'm an idiot. Sorry, jrmonroe, in my complete idiocy, it simply didn't occur to me what you were asking. And here I thought you were being obtuse...
    The .44 magnum was the Desert Eagle- which does have a manual safety switch.
    Until you asked about the cylinder release, it didn't occur to me that I hadn't clarified that earlier. I had to scroll up.
    Now I see why you asked me that! Logically, you were thinking of a revolver. It was my grandmother that had a revolver, a S&W .38 which she did not keep under the pillow. In all fairness, I never really was sure where she kept it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  38. #37  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    You won't notice that much difference other than the shorter barrel is a bit louder, has a little more recoil and slightly decreased effective range--and as you put it probably more administrative hassle.
    Thanks for stepping in there Lynx.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  39. #38  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    the right size instead of an awkward or clumsy rifle or shotgun when in tight quarters and close range.


    Too much Hollywood?
    Shotguns and light rifles are much preferred to handguns in most close quarters fights--and that's how every military in the world sees it as well and how they all train (as I did many times) (the 9mm was a backup weapon even in the tightest rooms). Handguns are inaccurate, even skilled shooters miss more than half the time under actual shooting conditions; by far more prone to accidents--killing more of their owners or their family members than assailants and more than any other weapon. They are also nearly useless for meeting the founding fathers intent of being a credible deterrent for tyrannical governments.

    I don't know why you discount handguns as a deterrent against tyrannical governments. Rifles and shotguns would be virtually useless if the American public had to go toe to toe against its own military. C'mon, those guys have tanks.

    Rifles are harder to hide from confiscation also. If 500 soldiers show up outside your house with artillery support waiting to blow you and your family sky high if you don't submit to a search..... I think you'd submit.


    The thing with handguns is they're easy to conceal. You never know who's got one. A tyrannical leader would have to suspect everyone they encountered who had the least difference of opinion with them might show up packing heat the next day. Soldiers would be afraid to step out of their vehicles.

    Just think about how Afghanistan would be if the people there had more handguns and fewer rifles. Every crowd of people could represent 20 or 30 possible threats to your life, in the form of people who could walk up to you and shoot you in the head from point blank range.

    Quote Originally Posted by seagypsy View Post

    Since I can only confirm one story as being more than a rumor, I am assuming some kid thought it would be funny in the aftermath of the Connecticut shooting to put a little scare into his/her school. Obviously the police have to err on the side of caution and it would be foolish not to. but the likelihood of a real threat, IMO, just seems out there a bit. What intended killer leaves his to do list outside the very location of the intended victims if he/she actually intends to follow through? Though this could be a clever decoy. If the police have their attention elsewhere, they may be more likely to be able to pull off some crime somewhere else.

    But if this is some joke it is really sad that someone out there thinks this kind of thing is funny. If they get caught, the joke will be on them. as any terroristic threat is taken very seriously and the " I was only kidding around" defense has never worked AFAIK.
    I think the goal of most rampage killers is to instill fear. The actual death count isn't important. It's the feeling of power looking into the eyes of all those terrified people begging not to be killed.

    Anyway, that's my guess. Otherwise why use a gun? Why not use a bomb? You'd kill more people with a bomb, and might even get away with it.
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  40. #39  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,309
    I don't know why you discount handguns as a deterrent against tyrannical governments. Rifles and shotguns would be virtually useless if the American public had to go toe to toe against its own military. C'mon, those guys have tanks.

    I strongly suggest you read the several excellent books about insurgency and counter insurgency operations. If you've only got time for one, read "Eating Soup with a knife." Tanks can't hold territory or compel populations to join their side. They also take enormous support to keep operational--support that's very vulnerable. You might also review the past twelve years of US combat operations, where we've lost thousands and crippled tens of thousands fighting against enemy that's MUCH less well equipped, or technically savvy than the US population's 2 million+ combat vets; many of them, like me were trained in how to improvise shape charges and other weapons adapted to kill heavy vehicles--something few Afghan or Iraqi civilians ever learned to do. You add the role State National guards and it's a very viable deterrent. Lastly many officers, such as myself were always piognantly aware of our oath to the US Constitution before orders of superiors--an oath I'm still honor bond to uphold as a retired military officer--there would be many defections.

    As we've touched on before, it's not about just weapon military capabilities -- it's about perceptions, cooperation of the local population and willingness to use that military capabilities.

    Bottom line our military, if they strayed from the US constitution, would be no match for our armed population. But like most Americans, I hope and doubt it would ever come to that.
    Last edited by Lynx_Fox; December 23rd, 2012 at 06:09 PM.
    MrMojo1 and Neverfly like this.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  41. #40  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    597
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    You won't notice that much difference other than the shorter barrel is a bit louder, has a little more recoil and slightly decreased effective range--and as you put it probably more administrative hassle.
    Except if you had stepped in sooner I might not have been such an idiot. Actually, I don't have the heart to buy an AR right now mainly because I think that these school shootings etc. are theoretically preventable. Thus, for me, buying the same weapon used in the last two mass killings would be like quitting, or hipocrisy. So I will probably stick to a pump shotgun under lock for home defense and a .308 bolt action (FN) if I get time to do some range work.

    I am not sure what the insurgency books have to do with this. I read "Learning to Eat Soup with a Knife". The idea that the U.S. is going to rise up against some govt. in D.C. even if the people were equipped with automatic weapons and anti-armor weapons, and anti-aircraft weapons seems laughable. The main problem in the U.S. and the world today in my opinion is indifference.

    Thus, I doubt anyone would care much who was running D.C. as long as they still had their I-phones.
    Last edited by dedo; December 29th, 2012 at 03:36 PM.
    Neverfly likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  42. #41  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,309
    I am not sure what the insurgency books have to do with this.
    It has everything to do with it. It is the primary reason why the founding fathers put in the 2nd amendment--it was considered the ultimate safety valve to protect the Constitution if the government they were crafting failed, became tyrannical, and no longer held up to their ideals.

    "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them."
    Richard Henry Lee

    "Those who hammer their guns into plowshares will plow for those who do not."
    Thomas Jefferson

    "What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms."
    Thomas Jefferson

    Hammalton, in Federalist paper 28, makes the case for individual arms quite clear, as well as its purpose:
    "
    If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no recourse left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual State. In a single State, if the persons intrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair. "

    And trust me, like many who served in the military over the past decade, and those who studied this issue at length as part of their profession of arms, a technologically inferior insurgency is quite capable of not only resisting, but of winning against far superior weaponry. Our own revolution was a splendid example...there have many more examples since.
    Last edited by Lynx_Fox; December 23rd, 2012 at 10:33 PM.
    gonzales56 and MrMojo1 like this.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  43. #42  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    597
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    I am not sure what the insurgency books have to do with this.
    It has everything to do with it. It is the primary reason why the founding fathers put in the 2nd amendment--it was considered the ultimate safety valve to protect the Constitution if the government they were crafting failed, became tyrannical, and no longer held up to their ideals.

    "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them."
    Richard Henry Lee

    "Those who hammer their guns into plowshares will plow for those who do not."
    Thomas Jefferson

    "What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms."
    Thomas Jefferson

    Hammalton, in Federalist paper 28, makes the case for individual arms quite clear, as well as its purpose:
    "
    If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no recourse left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual State. In a single State, if the persons intrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair. "

    And trust me, like many who served in the military over the past decade, and those who studied this issue at length as part of their profession of arms, a technologically inferior insurgency is quite capable of not only resisting, but of winning against far superior weaponry. Our own revolution was a splendid example...there have many more examples since.
    That is all well and good Lynx. However, I still don't get what your point is relative to gun control in general, or school safety in particular.

    I am not an anti-gunner. However, I don't really know what the right answer is.

    I don't think school shootings will be effected by gun control since I think something else is going on.

    However, some level of gun control might be reasonable. Guns are dangerous. In general, activities that are dangerous to the public do have some level of regulation. The idea that an 18 or 21 year old can buy a boat load of guns without any training seems crazy. Should drunks or addicts have unlimited access to guns?

    The concealed carry permits may actually help some with reducing gun violence and other problems if you needed a little more training to get one. Then people might try harder to "keep their nose clean" to avoid losing his / her permit?

    I don't think the founding fathers' intent was only for resisting tyranny. During colonial times, self defense was also required against Indian war parties. These war parties were resisted by armed militias. It is really up to the Supreme Court to determine the scope of the second amendment.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  44. #43  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    703
    I saw this in "The first 48 hour": there's always random people shooting someone somewhere, especially in the ghetto. The question is: why is there soo many people with guns?

    And in "Dog: The bounty hunter": they catch a person that have AK-47. With this kind of weapon, even police in body armor will get killed!

    Why is there soo many dangerous weapon?
    Do people have unlimited access to guns?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  45. #44  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,309
    However, I still don't get what your point is relative to gun control in general,

    Because and at the center of just about every argument against restricting gun purchases, is the 2nd amendment the right to bare arms who's primary purpose was to deter tyrannical government. The NRA doesn't highlight this fact very much because it erodes their blind support of hand guns and the huge hand gun manufacturer support they receive. (and trust me, having be close and personal in fighting several insurgencies, hand guns have almost no role in that regard)


    Do people have unlimited access to guns?


    For the most part yes. There are local and state differences in quality and use of background checks, registration etc. before buying a gun. Most of the somewhat difficult federal laws are centered on transport across state lines.
    MrMojo1 likes this.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  46. #45  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Western Australia
    Posts
    316
    after reading this thread i'm glad i live in a sensible country like australia.
    Sometimes it is better not knowing than having an answer that may be wrong.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  47. #46  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    597
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    However, I still don't get what your point is relative to gun control in general,

    Because and at the center of just about every argument against restricting gun purchases, is the 2nd amendment the right to bare arms who's primary purpose was to deter tyrannical government. The NRA doesn't highlight this fact very much because it erodes their blind support of hand guns and the huge hand gun manufacturer support they receive. (and trust me, having be close and personal in fighting several insurgencies, hand guns have almost no role in that regard)


    Do people have unlimited access to guns?


    For the most part yes. There are local and state differences in quality and use of background checks, registration etc. before buying a gun. Most of the somewhat difficult federal laws are centered on transport across state lines.
    I don't think it has been established that the purpose of the second amendment is to resist a tyrannical government. It seems like "self defense" has a much broader application than that.

    Handguns are important for self defense.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  48. #47  
    Forum Masters Degree MrMojo1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    South Florida, USA
    Posts
    618
    Quote Originally Posted by dedo View Post

    I don't think it has been established that the purpose of the second amendment is to resist a tyrannical government.
    Read post #41 again. You can check the Federalist Papers for yourself. They are the explanation to the USA Constitution.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  49. #48  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    597
    Quote Originally Posted by MrMojo1 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by dedo View Post

    I don't think it has been established that the purpose of the second amendment is to resist a tyrannical government.
    Read post #41 again. You can check the Federalist Papers for yourself. They are the explanation to the USA Constitution.
    I think the interpretation of the US Constitution is determined by the Supreme Court. Thus, if you have some ruling by that body that says the Second Amendment applies only to resisting tyrannical government then that would be decisive.

    Otherwise, it is just an opinion. It may be a reasonable opinion; however, it is not a proven fact.

    I think most Americans believe in the right of self defense in a broader sense.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  50. #49  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    1,032
    Quote Originally Posted by Chrispen Evan View Post
    after reading this thread i'm glad i live in a sensible country like australia.
    Nothing sensible IMO about outlawing or banning firearms unless you are a tyrant and/or work for tyrants. It even makes less sense to me for people who live in peace, or relatively peaceful times, to ignore the fact that times change and to create a system where ones children, grandchildren, etc., cannot and will not be able to defend themselves, their liberties or their freedom.

    What has made America great, what has made America strong, is her ability to understand that times change and to promote liberties and freedoms that will help her get through those times. Liberty and right is something Americans will fight and die for, and for America and Americans, this means from those people and situations that threatened liberty and right in the past, those that do it in the present and those that will do it in the future.

    The majority of people in the world today seems to only care about the here and now. They will sell everything, even the future of their own families, people and nation to serve their own perceived and very short term narrow needs and wants . They do not care what their country would or could look like in 100 years, in 50 years, etc.. They have no vision, no concept of real and reality, and it will be the reason nations like Australia will suffer and crumble a lot sooner than the United States will.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  51. #50  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Western Australia
    Posts
    316
    Nothing sensible IMO about outlawing or banning firearms unless you are a tyrant and/or work for tyrants. It even makes less sense to me for people who live in peace, or relatively peaceful times, to ignore the fact that times change and to create a system where ones children, grandchildren, etc., cannot and will not be able to defend themselves, their liberties or their freedom.
    you tell that to the parents of the kids just killed. if you americans have such a great democracy then the vote should be the guiding light not killing those you disagree with. you haven't got freedom, really. you all live in some made up fear. remember the berlin wall came down with no weapons involved.
    Phlogistician likes this.
    Sometimes it is better not knowing than having an answer that may be wrong.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  52. #51  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    Quote Originally Posted by Chrispen Evan View Post
    you tell that to the parents of the kids just killed.
    And how do you tell the parents in Australia, when a child is abducted or raped- or how do you tell a husband his wife was assaulted or raped and she was denied the legal right to defend themselves against the attacker?
    Quote Originally Posted by Chrispen Evan View Post
    if you americans have such a great democracy then the vote should be the guiding light not killing those you disagree with.
    Yes, because in the United States of America- we don't vote, we don't have 'such a great democracy' but instead, run around murdering everyone that disagrees, right? That is singularly the most absurd, emotionally driven yet lacking in any semblance of reality argument I've seen in this thread.
    Quote Originally Posted by Chrispen Evan View Post
    you haven't got freedom, really. you all live in some made up fear.
    This is almost true- we live in fear of the government dictating what we do, how we do it, nitpicking how we raise kids or whether or not we can even defend ourselves and our families.
    Quote Originally Posted by Chrispen Evan View Post
    remember the berlin wall came down with no weapons involved.
    Yes, and sometimes peaceful actions can lead to change. Look at the peaceful demonstrations made by many civil rights leaders, in spite of bigoted violence directed at them.
    But sometimes it doesn't and listing an example of two when diplomacy worked hardly demonstrates it is the only way to create change. It really isn't that relevant to this thread, even.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  53. #52  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Western Australia
    Posts
    316
    And how do you tell the parents in Australia, when a child is abducted or raped- or how do you tell a husband his wife was assaulted or raped and she was denied the legal right to defend themselves against the attacker?
    and that doesn't happen in america? you have guns so it shouldn't. is that your logic?

    Yes, because in the United States of America- we don't vote, we don't have 'such a great democracy' but instead, run around murdering everyone that disagrees, right? That is singularly the most absurd, emotionally driven yet lacking in any semblance of reality argument I've seen in this thread.
    gotta love strawmen.
    Phlogistician likes this.
    Sometimes it is better not knowing than having an answer that may be wrong.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  54. #53  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    Quote Originally Posted by Chrispen Evan View Post
    and that doesn't happen in america? you have guns so it shouldn't. is that your logic?
    It happens most frequently to unarmed citizens.
    Quote Originally Posted by Chrispen Evan View Post
    gotta love strawmen.
    Well, of course you love it. It was your straw man.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  55. #54  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Western Australia
    Posts
    316
    Well, of course you love it. It was your straw man.
    no, because i didn't say you don't vote and i didn't say you kill everyone who disagrees with you. nice try though.

    anyway. it is nice in australia and was nice in england when you knew there were not a lot of guns about. the democracies seemed to work ok, and england has had some "tyrannical" governments and governors.
    Sometimes it is better not knowing than having an answer that may be wrong.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  56. #55  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    Quote Originally Posted by Chrispen Evan View Post
    no, because i didn't say you don't vote and i didn't say you kill everyone who disagrees with you. nice try though.
    Here's a nice try for you: You said:
    "if you americans have such a great democracy then the vote should be the guiding light not killing those you disagree with."
    These are your words. If you regret those words after having it exposed how absurd they are- that is not my problem.
    Quote Originally Posted by Chrispen Evan View Post
    anyway. it is nice in australia and was nice in england when you knew there were not a lot of guns about. the democracies seemed to work ok, and england has had some "tyrannical" governments and governors.
    Yes, quite nice, I'm sure. No crime rate, no rapes or murders, right? Oh wait- another straw man, huh?
    Because both of those countries do have all those things. You also have less gun-related deaths... Because less muggers, burglars and rapists are being shot in the middle of their crimes.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  57. #56  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Western Australia
    Posts
    316
    Yes, quite nice, I'm sure. No crime rate, no rapes or murders, right? Oh wait- another straw man, huh?
    Because both of those countries do have all those things. You also have less gun-related deaths... Because less muggers, burglars and rapists are being shot in the middle of their crimes.
    did i say we had a perfect country? don't think so. we have fewer gun deaths because we have fewer guns. i doubt we would have a safer society if there were more guns.

    Gun politics in Australia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    seems to agree.

    Here's a nice try for you: You said:
    "if you americans have such a great democracy then the vote should be the guiding light not killing those you disagree with."
    These are your words. If you regret those words after having it exposed how absurd they are- that is not my problem
    errrr isn't the right to bear arms for the use against a government you don't like/want etc? either it isn't a democratically elected government you are fighting, which would be (maybe) ok, or it is one you voted for and you don't like because you didn't vote for them? if it is the first one then how did you allow it to get to the point of getting a dictatorship?
    Sometimes it is better not knowing than having an answer that may be wrong.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  58. #57  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    Quote Originally Posted by Chrispen Evan View Post
    did i say we had a perfect country? don't think so. we have fewer gun deaths because we have fewer guns. i doubt we would have a safer society if there were more guns.
    Yes, fewer gun deaths - I covered that...
    Quote Originally Posted by Chrispen Evan View Post
    errrr isn't the right to bear arms for the use against a government you don't like/want etc? either it isn't a democratically elected government you are fighting, which would be (maybe) ok, or it is one you voted for and you don't like because you didn't vote for them? if it is the first one then how did you allow it to get to the point of getting a dictatorship?
    Why- you're absolutely right! The new straw man is that when we disagree with the government, we kill those within it.

    Wait, hang on...

    And - "Allow it to get to the point of a dictatorship?!" Really? Did you really just ask that after your straw men arguments about using guns to kill the government?!
    The second amendment includes the necessity of an armed public to resist tyranny, but does not end there. The right to keep and bear arms is general and covers self defense.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  59. #58  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Western Australia
    Posts
    316
    Why- you're absolutely right! The new straw man is that when we disagree with the government, we kill those within it.
    well you do have a tendency to kill your pollies. you can't deny that.

    plus the strawman argument has run its course don't you think?
    especially when you don't seem to actually understand the meaning of it.

    anyway if you love your guns good onya. we in australia like no guns. and i too like that.
    Sometimes it is better not knowing than having an answer that may be wrong.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  60. #59  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    Quote Originally Posted by Chrispen Evan View Post
    well you do have a tendency to kill your pollies. you can't deny that.
    Let's examine how many we're talking about.
    Since the U.S.A. was founded, about 38 political figures have been assassinated, by one method or another.
    That is out of...
    Category:United States Congresses - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Category:Lists of United States governors - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Yeah, you know what? I'm not goin' through that series of lists and adding up just how many people have served in public office since the U.S.A. began...
    Think that percentage might be rather low...
    But hey, that's just the U.S.A, right? What about looking around the world?
    List of assassinations and assassination attempts - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    This might get really ugly...
    Quote Originally Posted by Chrispen Evan View Post
    plus the strawman argument has run its course don't you think?
    I thought that the first time.
    Quote Originally Posted by Chrispen Evan View Post
    we in australia like no guns.
    Well... some of you don't. But for many people, they do not have feelings about inanimate objects. They focus their attention on the actual problem.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  61. #60  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    703
    Could gun is made for assasination of tyranical leader?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  62. #61  
    Forum Masters Degree MrMojo1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    South Florida, USA
    Posts
    618
    Quote Originally Posted by dedo View Post

    I think the interpretation of the US Constitution is determined by the Supreme Court. Thus, if you have some ruling by that body that says the Second Amendment applies only to resisting tyrannical government then that would be decisive.

    Otherwise, it is just an opinion. It may be a reasonable opinion; however, it is not a proven fact.

    I think most Americans believe in the right of self defense in a broader sense.
    I will re-state that the Federalist Papers were written by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay. It was designed to explain and influence the ratification of the Constitution. The explanation within it refers exactly to resisting a government that betrays its constituents.

    A state or federal court can rule on a case that has civil rights implications, the Supreme Court is only the last stop of a judicial appeal process. The Supreme Court chooses if the appeal has merit to be heard. When the Supreme Court rules on a case they issues a majority opinion and a dissenting opinion. There are times when a court is place in the awkward position of "interpretation" of laws when contemporary matters did not exist when law was originally legislated. As to the the Supreme Court ruling on such a case see the ruling on District of Columbia V. Dick Anthony Heller.

    I'm not sure of your use of the phrase "Otherwise, it is just an opinion..." because it is obviously an opinion of that court.


    DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, ET AL., PETITIONERS v. DICK ANTHONY HELLER.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  63. #62  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    703
    This is funny... Constitution sounds like a holy book that need interpretation.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  64. #63  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    597
    Quote Originally Posted by MrMojo1 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by dedo View Post

    I think the interpretation of the US Constitution is determined by the Supreme Court. Thus, if you have some ruling by that body that says the Second Amendment applies only to resisting tyrannical government then that would be decisive.

    Otherwise, it is just an opinion. It may be a reasonable opinion; however, it is not a proven fact.

    I think most Americans believe in the right of self defense in a broader sense.
    I will re-state that the Federalist Papers were written by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay. It was designed to explain and influence the ratification of the Constitution. The explanation within it refers exactly to resisting a government that betrays its constituents.

    A state or federal court can rule on a case that has civil rights implications, the Supreme Court is only the last stop of a judicial appeal process. The Supreme Court chooses if the appeal has merit to be heard. When the Supreme Court rules on a case they issues a majority opinion and a dissenting opinion. There are times when a court is place in the awkward position of "interpretation" of laws when contemporary matters did not exist when law was originally legislated. As to the the Supreme Court ruling on such a case see the ruling on District of Columbia V. Dick Anthony Heller.

    I'm not sure of your use of the phrase "Otherwise, it is just an opinion..." because it is obviously an opinion of that court.


    DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, ET AL., PETITIONERS v. DICK ANTHONY HELLER.

    I am not sure of your point. If you read the court decision that you referenced, the decision specifically says that the Second Amendment includes protecting and individual's right to defend his home. The decision says that the D.C. total ban on handguns is unconstitutional.

    This supports what I have been saying. The Second Amendment does not only apply to resisting tyrannical governments, and also applies to an individual's right to self defense against other threats.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  65. #64  
    Forum Masters Degree MrMojo1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    South Florida, USA
    Posts
    618
    Quote Originally Posted by dedo View Post


    I am not sure of your point. If you read the court decision that you referenced....
    You didn't read the entire opinion where it reflects the history for which this amendment is based upon:

    Between the Restoration and the Glorious Revolution, the Stuart Kings Charles II and James II succeeded in using select militias loyal to them to suppress political dissidents, in part by disarming their opponents. See J. Malcolm, To Keep and Bear Arms 31-53 (1994) (hereinafter Malcolm); L. Schwoerer, The Declaration of Rights, 1689, p. 76 (1981). Under the auspices of the 1671 Game Act, for example, the Catholic James II had ordered general disarmaments of regions [***11]home to his Protestant enemies. See Malcolm 103-106. These experiences caused Englishmen to be extremely wary of concentrated military forces run by the state and to be jealous of their arms. They accordingly obtained an assurance from William and Mary, in the Declaration of Right (which was codified as the English Bill of Rights), that Protestants would never be disarmed: "That the subjects which are Protestants may have arms for their defense suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law." 1 W. & M., c. 2, § 7, in 3 Eng. Stat. at Large 441 (1689). This right has long been understood to be the predecessor to our Second Amendment....
    It clearly notes an oppressive government.

    As to having a weapon for self defense, the ruling re-affairs it is understood as a natural right. The 2nd Amendment does not grant the privilege of bearing arms, but notes that the government can not infringe upon it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  66. #65  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    1,032
    Quote Originally Posted by Chrispen Evan View Post
    Nothing sensible IMO about outlawing or banning firearms unless you are a tyrant and/or work for tyrants. It even makes less sense to me for people who live in peace, or relatively peaceful times, to ignore the fact that times change and to create a system where ones children, grandchildren, etc., cannot and will not be able to defend themselves, their liberties or their freedom.
    you tell that to the parents of the kids just killed. if you americans have such a great democracy then the vote should be the guiding light not killing those you disagree with. you haven't got freedom, really. you all live in some made up fear. remember the berlin wall came down with no weapons involved.
    I am sure the parents are wondering why these children were not being protected by a police officer / security, and I am sure they have to be wondering, like most sane people are, why schools are still not being protected by a police officer / security. Obama and all these shameless politicians using the death of these children as a political tool in an attempt to pass and push a radical agenda against gun ownership and against providing security for school children, are themselves surrounded by guns and security to protect them and their children.

    If the democrats and politicians want the american people to throw out their arms, then government and government employees should disarm first. If the president and politicians do not want to provide security for children at schools, then they themselves should not be provided security. If guns do not protect, if they do not provide security, if all they do is kill and make people kill innocent people, then obama and his fellow politicians should disarm and call for all federal employees to stop carrying guns, and they should stop funding security for them and their families.

    It is not about guns, it is not about all the obama and democrat lies, it is all about the state/government having an easier path to step on their subjects and they are using these children to try and push their radical agenda/goals/beliefs.

    100s of thousands, perhaps even millions, ultimately died in order for the wall to come down.
    Last edited by gonzales56; December 30th, 2012 at 11:46 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  67. #66  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    703
    Is gun mandatory to have?

    Shouldn't less gun is more safer?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  68. #67  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,309
    Quote Originally Posted by gonzales56 View Post
    I am sure the parents are wondering why these children were not being protected by a police officer / security, and I am sure they have to be wondering, like most sane people are, why schools are still not being protected by a police officer / security.
    You mean like Columbine high school, which had armed security? Yep, people want quick and absolute fixes, not realistic ones.

    --
    None of this can be put on the president, he's hardly done a thing about gun control and most claims otherwise are attacking strawmen.

    This incident though will bring a lot of support if he chooses to tackle that subject. Better screening for gun owners and improved mental health wouldn't have helped prevent this most recent shooting, but it could have helped prevent several mass shootings over the past ten years--such as at Columbine and Virginia tech. Incremental improvements are better than none and realistic.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  69. #68  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    703
    Perhaps need more surveilance camera & add the ability to detect gun before it goes off and auto-dispatch police to the scene. In ghetto they have this camera that can detect gun shot.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  70. #69  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    1,032
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by gonzales56 View Post
    I am sure the parents are wondering why these children were not being protected by a police officer / security, and I am sure they have to be wondering, like most sane people are, why schools are still not being protected by a police officer / security.
    You mean like Columbine high school, which had armed security? Yep, people want quick and absolute fixes, not realistic ones.

    --
    None of this can be put on the president, he's hardly done a thing about gun control and most claims otherwise are attacking strawmen.

    This incident though will bring a lot of support if he chooses to tackle that subject. Better screening for gun owners and improved mental health wouldn't have helped prevent this most recent shooting, but it could have helped prevent several mass shootings over the past ten years--such as at Columbine and Virginia tech. Incremental improvements are better than none and realistic.
    Nice try but columbine did not have armed men nor did they have security. What they had was an unarmed security officer and a policeman outside of the school in the parking lot eating lunch in a car. I am not sure who told you that this is or was armed men and security, but they lied to you.

    Obama might think that this is security for the american children and embassy's, but and again, he demands many guns, armed men and security for him, his buddies and his family while he wants the american people to have nothing to protect them and their families. It is pretty sad.
    Last edited by gonzales56; December 30th, 2012 at 04:52 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  71. #70  
    Forum Masters Degree MrMojo1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    South Florida, USA
    Posts
    618
    Quote Originally Posted by gonzales56 View Post
    Nice try but columbine did not have armed men nor did they have security. What they had was an unarmed security officer and a policeman outside of the school in the parking lot eating lunch in a car. I am not sure who told you that this is or was armed men and security, but they lied to you.
    Not sure I you even bothered to look into this, it took me less than a minute to find it Jefferson County Sheriff Deputies on the Scene info:

    Jefferson County Sheriff’s Deputy Neil Gardner soon would complete his second year as the uniformed community resource officer assigned to Columbine High School. Gardner, a 15-year veteran of the Sheriff’s Office, normally ate his lunch with the students in the cafeteria during first lunch period. His car would have been parked in his “normal spot” in front of the cafeteria doors - between the junior and senior parking lots....
    The Jefferson County, Colorado reports that there was an armed deputy and a unarmed security officer assigned to the school.

    Obama might think that this is security for the american children and embassy's, but and again, he demands many guns, armed men and security for him, his buddies and his family while he wants the american people to have nothing to protect them and their families. It is pretty sad.
    This is just your political rhetoric. Obama wasn't the President at the time of the Columbine shooting, nor did he establish the Secret Service, and finally at this point he hasn't restricted access to any firearms in his presidency. As a matter of record he has allowed guns in most national parks, which a previous Republican president restricted.

    Is the NRA right that Obama is 'coming for our guns'?
    Last edited by MrMojo1; December 30th, 2012 at 11:12 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  72. #71  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,309
    [QUOTE=gonzales56;380635]Nice try but columbine did not have armed men nor did they have security. What they had was an unarmed security officer and a policeman outside of the school in the parking lot eating lunch in a car. I am not sure who told you that this is or was armed men and security, but they lied to you. [\quote]

    You just admitted as much. Armed guards, even traded shoots with the assailants and there was still a massacre. People eat lunch...and go to the bathroom...and whether you like to believe it or not actually can't be everyplace of a large school at the same time--it's not like we get our education in one room school houses anymore.

    And there are hundreds of examples of completely well armed people being surprised and massacred...but we can cover just a few including Gifford's assailant, or perhaps the four on duty cops in Tacoma killed a couple years ago. It takes seconds to draw a handgun and unload a 30 round magazine into a crowd--so fast that most times even the best trained aren't going to be effective as they uncover their weapon, bring it to bare and try to figure out what the heck is going on and waiting for a safe opportunity to fire since about half handgun rounds ultimately miss their targets. That's how it really happens, not like Mel Gibson who pulls his weapon and puts two in the head instantly.

    There's absolutely nothing wrong with having armed security at a school, and most police departements already do rounds that include the school grounds. But any good defense needs to be in depth, not like the feeble and in isolation ineffective solutions proposed by the NRA last week. In depth means mental health care, checks on people purchasing guns, some restrictions on the types of weaponry AND as the last defense improved school security with training and some presence.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  73. #72  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    1,032
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post

    You just admitted as much. Armed guards, even traded shoots with the assailants and there was still a massacre. People eat lunch...and go to the bathroom...and whether you like to believe it or not actually can't be everyplace of a large school at the same time--it's not like we get our education in one room school houses anymore.

    And there are hundreds of examples of completely well armed people being surprised and massacred...but we can cover just a few including Gifford's assailant, or perhaps the four on duty cops in Tacoma killed a couple years ago. It takes seconds to draw a handgun and unload a 30 round magazine into a crowd--so fast that most times even the best trained aren't going to be effective as they uncover their weapon, bring it to bare and try to figure out what the heck is going on and waiting for a safe opportunity to fire since about half handgun rounds ultimately miss their targets. That's how it really happens, not like Mel Gibson who pulls his weapon and puts two in the head instantly.

    There's absolutely nothing wrong with having armed security at a school, and most police departements already do rounds that include the school grounds. But any good defense needs to be in depth, not like the feeble and in isolation ineffective solutions proposed by the NRA last week. In depth means mental health care, checks on people purchasing guns, some restrictions on the types of weaponry AND as the last defense improved school security with training and some presence.
    No matter how you try and spin it the fact of the matter is that there was no security or guards posted at columbine during the shooting.

    Claiming that banning guns will prevent people from killing children at schools, IMO, is a flat out lie that has nothing to do with protecting school children at all.

    You ever been to a place that had two sets of doors someone needed to be buzzed through, with metal detectors at the first door and armed guards in the middle of those two doors? You are not going to get into that place with a gun or metal knife if everyone is doing their job, and this type of system will protect school children. Banning clips over 10 rounds, making bullet buttons, banning recoil suppressors or banning guns that look like military weapons will not do anything to stop sickos from going into schools and killing children. Only security and armed guards will protect them from sickos.

    Concerning Obama, he has pretty much already said that security for american school children is not an option. I find it ironic, hypocritical and very disturbing to say the least. Obama is not the only one though... Most of these elite folks have a slew of armed men and body guards to protect them and yet they will declare that guns protect no one, only cause more crime and they should all be banned (and by "they" and "all" they are only talking about the middle class and poor and guns they own). What is good for the rich or high and mighty is not always good for the poor I guess, and that is all Obama and those like him are saying right now.
    Last edited by gonzales56; December 31st, 2012 at 02:50 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  74. #73  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    703
    Why not put high taxes to gun? brilliant! This will reduce gun sales, while increasing revenue for the state to hire more police officers and metal detectors.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  75. #74  
    has lost interest seagypsy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    3,107
    Quote Originally Posted by msafwan View Post
    Why not put high taxes to gun? brilliant! This will reduce gun sales, while increasing revenue for the state to hire more police officers and metal detectors.
    They thought raising taxes on alcohol and cigarettes would reduce the sales on that too. The people who want guns will get guns. Sadly the only people who will not have guns due to costs are the good guys. Criminals don't buy guns through legal channels. They steal them.
    Speaking badly about people after they are gone and jumping on the bash the band wagon must do very well for a low self-esteem.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  76. #75  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,309
    Gonzales, your quibbling about Columbine...they had armed security, and in fact the shoot out before the swat showed up probably saved a few kids, but not nearly enough--that's the problem with nearly every armed guard scenario--there's blood shed before assailents are stopped and sometimes innocents get killed by those trying to do the rescue.

    And honestly, by the time any gunmen gets near a school intending to do harm, there's already been multiple opportunities that have completely failed--in fact the choices either become imprison your children at school, which runs completely counter to the culture we should want our kids raised in, or create those systems with barriers well to the left of the act. I won't bore with you security theory, but you should really learn some, defenses in depth are about the only things that work well. There's no good reason in the world not to restrict magazines to ten rounds, not to require people give up personal information everytime they purchase a weapon (even at gun shows), not to have their background checked for violent convictions or legal required mental treatments, waiting periods and required reporting for those who try to bypass or foul the system. Add to that required reporting for suspicious behaviors and a good mental health system to fall back on and you'd actually make some progress.


    Now and realistically that wouldn't stop all of them...but darn it would sure be nice to have murder rates closer to the rest of the advanced nations, and fewer mass shootings.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  77. #76  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    1,032
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    Gonzales, your quibbling about Columbine...they had armed security, and in fact the shoot out before the swat showed up probably saved a few kids, but not nearly enough--that's the problem with nearly every armed guard scenario--there's blood shed before assailents are stopped and sometimes innocents get killed by those trying to do the rescue.

    And honestly, by the time any gunmen gets near a school intending to do harm, there's already been multiple opportunities that have completely failed--in fact the choices either become imprison your children at school, which runs completely counter to the culture we should want our kids raised in, or create those systems with barriers well to the left of the act. I won't bore with you security theory, but you should really learn some, defenses in depth are about the only things that work well. There's no good reason in the world not to restrict magazines to ten rounds, not to require people give up personal information everytime they purchase a weapon (even at gun shows), not to have their background checked for violent convictions or legal required mental treatments, waiting periods and required reporting for those who try to bypass or foul the system. Add to that required reporting for suspicious behaviors and a good mental health system to fall back on and you'd actually make some progress.


    Now and realistically that wouldn't stop all of them...but darn it would sure be nice to have murder rates closer to the rest of the advanced nations, and fewer mass shootings.
    Your definition of armed guards and school security at columbine was one armed guy eating lunch out in the parking lot in his car. That is not my definition of armed guards or security, nor is that the definition for most sane people.

    Armed guards, metal detectors, electronic doors and cameras also does not equal less freedom for school children. You might as well claim that school roofs rob the kids of their freedom to see the sky or walking in lines, paying attention, being quite and doing work is prison life for kids.

    We are clearly not going to agree on this issue Fox, and that is fine, right? I see no reason to go after the weapons the middle class and the poor rely on to be prepared and ready to defend themselves and their loved ones with. I see no reason to disarm them from the rifle of their choosing.

    For schools, provide the proper security and the problem will be solved. It is that simple for me.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  78. #77  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    703
    Quote Originally Posted by seagypsy View Post
    They thought raising taxes on alcohol and cigarettes would reduce the sales on that too. The people who want guns will get guns. Sadly the only people who will not have guns due to costs are the good guys. Criminals don't buy guns through legal channels. They steal them.
    What about high taxes only for automatic weapon and bullets, while no tax for a handgun? The money will be useful for hiring private security company.
    Last edited by msafwan; December 31st, 2012 at 05:48 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  79. #78  
    Forum Sophomore Phlogistician's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Mars
    Posts
    156
    Quote Originally Posted by gonzales56 View Post
    For schools, provide the proper security and the problem will be solved. It is that simple for me.
    So if there'd been an armed guard at the school in the linked story in the OP, how do you think things would have turned out? A happy ending, or a dead 11 year old?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  80. #79  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    1,032
    Quote Originally Posted by Phlogistician View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by gonzales56 View Post
    For schools, provide the proper security and the problem will be solved. It is that simple for me.
    So if there'd been an armed guard at the school in the linked story in the OP, how do you think things would have turned out? A happy ending, or a dead 11 year old?
    Depends on what you think security is and were you are going to put armed guards. You cant have one armed guard eating lunch in his car out in a parking lot and claim school children are well protected. You cant let anyone and everyone into a school and claim the school is secure.

    Proper security and armed officers will stop people who are armed and should not be there from going into schools and killing children. It is the only thing that will work.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  81. #80  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,309
    Seagypsy, actually most criminals do get their guns through legal channels, often private gun shows with unlicensed dealers and huge loop holes in current holes.

    In addition to reasonable steps I've mentioned already to have defense in depth, this John Hopkins study shows a few other steps:

    Make the legal age of purchase 21-- as it turns out between 18 and 21 is a big part of the murder rates.
    Fill the holes in private gun shows.
    http://www.jhsph.edu/research/center...essRelease.pdf

    What I like about their research and recommendations is they don't recommend sweeping restrictions, and in fact are pretty candid that the numbers don't show general gun ownership that's the problem...it's who has access and the types of firearms available. But many responsible gun owners already know that--regardless of the crap the NRA is peddling.
    Last edited by Lynx_Fox; December 31st, 2012 at 12:52 PM.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  82. #81  
    has lost interest seagypsy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    3,107
    I won't pretend to know all the details, but I know this much. Mentalities have changed dramatically over the decades. People do not respect authority like they used to and they don't respect the law. Personally, I think it is because the state is too involved in telling parents how to raise their kids. Taking away our ability to discipline and too quick to charge parents with abuse over minor crap like scolding a child harshly when they do something insanely stupid. And spanking needs to not be considered a criminal act. The only reason I didn't blow anyone away when I was a kid is because I feared my mother. I still do. I fear her more than I fear the law. I can deal with jail. But I can't handle being rejected by my mom. She is still the closest thing to god in my world. parents these days can't command that kind of respect because kids are able to threaten to have their parents arrested if they don't get what they want.
    Speaking badly about people after they are gone and jumping on the bash the band wagon must do very well for a low self-esteem.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  83. #82  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,309
    Seagypy don't' fall for the hype...or what seems to be the natural process of denigrating and being concerned about the craziness of youth. By just about every measure young people are much better than they were in the past, more graduate high school and go to college, rates of juvenile crime have dropped dramatically, hard drug use is down, teenage pregnancy is down (was actually highest during the 1950--the naive "leave it to beaver years"). Here's an article about how resistant those facts have been getting into the public perception. We're living the dream; we just don't realize it - CNN.com


    Local areas have different laws, but there's absolutely no federal prohibition on spanking...nor even in most states. (I just completed an upper level education course about child abuse and counseling and another legal course which explicitly covered these areas)--what you cant' do is leave bruises or scars, or deny your kid food for a week, or make them sleep naked on the porch in a snow storm and similar horrible mistreatment. Any parent that needs to abuse their child to get their respect or obedience, needs some serious training about parenting.

    But to drag this thread back more on the side topic of gun use, there are pretty strong links to economics, education of parents, past abuse of the parent as a child & abusers and gun deaths among our younger people.
    Last edited by Lynx_Fox; January 1st, 2013 at 12:34 AM.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  84. #83  
    Forum Sophomore Phlogistician's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Mars
    Posts
    156
    Quote Originally Posted by gonzales56 View Post
    Depends on what you think security is.... blah blah blah .... It is the only thing that will work.
    I asked you a question:

    So if there'd been an armed guard at the school in the linked story in the OP, how do you think things would have turned out? A happy ending, or a dead 11 year old?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  85. #84  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    Quote Originally Posted by Phlogistician View Post
    So if there'd been an armed guard at the school in the linked story in the OP, how do you think things would have turned out? A happy ending, or a dead 11 year old?
    Your question assumes too much. It's like one of those bad polls people start as a thread where they give only two options that don't really apply.

    My own answer would be: Armed guard shoots and kills the threat, eliminating it and preventing children from being killed.
    Is that a happy ending? It's good enough for me.

    Let's go the other way- taking by your example. There are no armaments and no guards. The police are not armed because by your example, guns and armed guards are somehow ineffective- So the criminal shooter just keeps killing until he's out of ammo.
    Doesn't seem like a viable solution, to me.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  86. #85  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    1,032
    Quote Originally Posted by Phlogistician View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by gonzales56 View Post
    Depends on what you think security is.... blah blah blah .... It is the only thing that will work.
    I asked you a question:

    So if there'd been an armed guard at the school in the linked story in the OP, how do you think things would have turned out? A happy ending, or a dead 11 year old?
    If proper security and armed guards were in place then they would have found the gun in the kids backpack before he even entered the school.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  87. #86  
    Forum Sophomore Phlogistician's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Mars
    Posts
    156
    Quote Originally Posted by Neverfly View Post
    Let's go the other way- taking by your example. There are no armaments and no guards. The police are not armed because by your example, guns and armed guards are somehow ineffective- So the criminal shooter just keeps killing until he's out of ammo.
    Doesn't seem like a viable solution, to me.
    That's how it is in the UK, and there hasn't been a school shooting since 1996. There's a very long list of school shootings in the USA since then.

    Also, your claim that the perpetrator just keeps shooting until they are out of ammunition is fallacious, as many commit suicide.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  88. #87  
    Forum Sophomore Phlogistician's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Mars
    Posts
    156
    Quote Originally Posted by gonzales56 View Post

    If proper security and armed guards were in place then they would have found the gun in the kids backpack before he even entered the school.
    So you want to turn schools into prisons, search bags, install metal detectors, just to move school shootings into the car park? You do understand what you propose simply moves the problem, it doesn't solve it?
    MrMojo1 likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  89. #88  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    Quote Originally Posted by Phlogistician View Post
    That's how it is in the UK, and there hasn't been a school shooting since 1996. There's a very long list of school shootings in the USA since then.
    School shooting - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Let's see now... No evil bad (inanimate) guns, so schools in UK are safe, now, right?

    Ruh Roh:
    School violence - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    On the basis of police statistics found through a Freedom of Information request, in 2007 there were more than 7,000 cases of the police being called to deal with violence in schools in England.[13]
    http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j...55534169,d.b2U
    80,000 pupils suspended for school violence - Education News - Education - The Independent
    Classroom violence | Education | The Guardian


    Quote Originally Posted by Phlogistician View Post
    Also, your claim that the perpetrator just keeps shooting until they are out of ammunition is fallacious, as many commit suicide.
    Nonsense. The observed trend is that they keep shooting until something interferes with their ability to shoot with impunity.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  90. #89  
    Forum Sophomore Phlogistician's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Mars
    Posts
    156
    Quote Originally Posted by Neverfly View Post
    On the basis of police statistics found through a Freedom of Information request, in 2007 there were more than 7,000 cases of the police being called to deal with violence in schools in England.
    And how many in the USA? Giving stats for one side is pointless. Hey, I just looked some up!

    "In 2000, the number of crimes at school in which students ages 12 through 18 were the victims is 2.5 million. About 186,000 of those were serious violent crimes {including rape, sexual assault, robbery and aggravated assault}."
    (
    http://www.nssc1.org/ten-hard-facts-about-school-violence.html)

    Compared to just 7000 in the UK right? Thanks, you kinda proved my point.

    Nonsense. The observed trend is that they keep shooting until something interferes with their ability to shoot with impunity.
    Really, so Jacob Tyler Roberts and Adam Lanza didn't commit suicide? I know the former shot up a mall, not a school, but hey, disproves your point either way.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  91. #90  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    Quote Originally Posted by Phlogistician View Post
    Really, so Jacob Tyler Roberts and Adam Lanza didn't commit suicide? I know the former shot up a mall, not a school, but hey, disproves your point either way.
    Not at all- you missed the point, both in the above figures (That violent crime still continues even without the hated "guns") and that they wanted to shoot a place up, cause as much damage as they could, before ending it in a suicide when they could not continue with the shocking rampage.

    The trend shows that they will make the rampage last as long as they can. I never once said they don't commit suicide- I said that they will continue as long as they can.

    A big part of the suicide is also due to the fact that armed people will come and point guns at them. It's preferable to die on your own terms (as well as placement of the round to make it as fast and painless as possible).
    Reply With Quote  
     

  92. #91  
    Forum Sophomore Phlogistician's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Mars
    Posts
    156
    Quote Originally Posted by Neverfly View Post
    Not at all- you missed the point, both in the above figures (That violent crime still continues even without the hated "guns")
    Oh, right, _that_ was your point? Because the UK sees very little crime in schools compared to the US, and there hasn't been a school shooting in 16 years, our system couldn't make your kids safer, despite the figures? You compared the numbers, right, 7,000 crimes in the UK (and as that was just 'schools' where kids attend from age 5 to 16, some stay to 18), yet the US comparison was 186,000 between the ages of 12 to 18. So adjusting for population, you get around six times more crimes in a smaller age window. So instead of making schools calm places, you want to put in more guns, metal detectors, search bags, and generally make them like prisons, because prisons are such peaceful places of learning,....


    The trend shows that they will make the rampage last as long as they can. I never once said they don't commit suicide- I said that they will continue as long as they can.
    Nah, in both cases, the shooters could have carried on for longer.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  93. #92  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    597
    There are many interesting ideas on this thread. I wonder if anyone works inside the school system.

    We just got back from a trip. We met up with a relative who works in a high school. She thought that the school policy of "mainstreaming" was a factor in this. Mainstreaming means it is hard to get violent kids out of the school as they try to keep the violent kids in school with the non-violent kids.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  94. #93  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    Quote Originally Posted by Phlogistician View Post
    Oh, right, _that_ was your point? Because the UK sees very little crime in schools compared to the US, and there hasn't been a school shooting in 16 years, our system couldn't make your kids safer, despite the figures? You compared the numbers, right, 7,000 crimes in the UK (and as that was just 'schools' where kids attend from age 5 to 16, some stay to 18), yet the US comparison was 186,000 between the ages of 12 to 18. So adjusting for population, you get around six times more crimes in a smaller age window.
    You're jumping all over figures that you believe support your conclusions. However, I compared the two wiki articles:
    School violence - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    I dunno where you got yours from, at all.
    Quote Originally Posted by Phlogistician View Post
    So instead of making schools calm places, you want to put in more guns,
    Sure, but the rest? Nope, not at all. I'm directly opposed to the rest:
    Quote Originally Posted by Phlogistician View Post
    metal detectors, search bags, and generally make them like prisons, because prisons are such peaceful places of learning,....
    All of this, I oppose.

    The thing is, you think inanimate objects are the problem. That has to be the most absurd thing anyone can ever claim. You may as well cite Crystal Power.

    Quote Originally Posted by Phlogistician View Post
    Nah, in both cases, the shooters could have carried on for longer.
    Back this claim up.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  95. #94  
    Forum Masters Degree MrMojo1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    South Florida, USA
    Posts
    618
    Sam Harris penned a sound argument that is a good read. The most honest point he made was this one:

    As I said at the outset, I do not know how we can solve the problem of gun violence. A renewed ban on “assault rifles”—nearly the only concrete measure that anyone is talking about—will do very little to make our society safer. It is not, as many advocates seem to believe, an important “first step” in achieving a sane policy with respect to guns. It seems likely to be a symbolic step that delays real thinking about the problem of guns for another decade or more. By all means, let us ban these weapons. But when the next lunatic arrives at a school armed with legal pistols and a dozen ten-round magazines, we should be prepared to talk about how an assault weapons ban was a distraction from the real issue of gun violence.

    The Riddle of the Gun
    Reply With Quote  
     

  96. #95  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    703
    What if every gun is a taser? would be brilliant! Worse case is just some old guy had a heart attack and not some blood spilling everywhere.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  97. #96  
    Forum Masters Degree MrMojo1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    South Florida, USA
    Posts
    618
    Tasers can kill. It is rare, but there has been events where misuse led to death.

    Robert Dziekański Taser incident
    Reply With Quote  
     

  98. #97  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    Quote Originally Posted by MrMojo1 View Post
    Tasers can kill. It is rare, but there has been events where misuse led to death.

    Robert Dziekański Taser incident
    Reading the articles on this incident- it's a clear reminder as to why I believe that a persons defense should be personally up to them, and not to rely on police.
    One can easily wonder, as they took steps to cover the incident up- how many times they were successful in a cover up.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  99. #98  
    has lost interest seagypsy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    3,107
    Pencils can kill too, especially when strategically placed inside the skull. I guess they should ban all bad things and just bubble wrap the planet. Oh wait, bubble wrap is dangerous too. Life is dangerous, the sooner we get over it and learn to deal with it the better.
    Speaking badly about people after they are gone and jumping on the bash the band wagon must do very well for a low self-esteem.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  100. #99  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    1,032
    Quote Originally Posted by Phlogistician View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by gonzales56 View Post

    If proper security and armed guards were in place then they would have found the gun in the kids backpack before he even entered the school.
    So you want to turn schools into prisons, search bags, install metal detectors, just to move school shootings into the car park? You do understand what you propose simply moves the problem, it doesn't solve it?
    I am not sure you know how metal detectors work nor am i sure you understand prison/s.

    Metal detectors are and can be set/calibrated to pickup certain metals and quantities. They can also be positioned and placed around door frames. Hardly intrusive nor nothing like a prison.

    Look, if ones goal is to not provide security for school children so they can ban guns or limit other freedoms of their people, then that is what they will push for. For those who want to protect school children and schools from murderers and sickos then they understand the need for, and advocate for, proper school security. It is the only thing that will work in a society of free people and liberty.

    All this talk about banning guns has done nothing but made the american people buy them up by the millions over the last month or so, and this trend will continue for months, maybe even years to come. If you think guns are bad, if you think rifles are horrible, all that has happened is that people who would have otherwise never owned one, now own at least one.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  101. #100  
    Forum Masters Degree MrMojo1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    South Florida, USA
    Posts
    618
    Quote Originally Posted by gonzales56 View Post
    I am not sure you know how metal detectors work nor am i sure you understand prison/s.

    Metal detectors are and can be set/calibrated to pickup certain metals and quantities. They can also be positioned and placed around door frames. Hardly intrusive nor nothing like a prison.
    So how does a metal detector set in a door frame prevent a shooting in the parking lot?
    Reply With Quote  
     

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Saucer shaped "object" found in Baltic sea
    By Lynx_Fox in forum Earth Sciences
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: June 15th, 2012, 12:33 AM
  2. "MOND", Prelude to "Critique of the Universe, Introduction"
    By Gary Anthony Kent in forum Astronomy & Cosmology
    Replies: 40
    Last Post: January 28th, 2012, 12:31 AM
  3. "Dating" posts split from "Purpose of life" thread
    By Christopher Ball in forum Pseudoscience
    Replies: 155
    Last Post: October 16th, 2011, 05:37 AM
  4. "Dating" posts split from "Purpose of life" thread
    By Christopher Ball in forum Earth Sciences
    Replies: 90
    Last Post: October 11th, 2011, 10:35 AM
  5. Replies: 0
    Last Post: September 20th, 2006, 01:35 AM
Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •