Gun Control

[PIMking]

Teachers with guns?!!?!?! you can't have legal citizens in charge of their own protection that is what the police are for!!!

/sarcasm

[The_Graygator]

Originally Posted by DaveFla

"Why do you rob banks"

"Because, that's where the money is."

Hit the nail on the head with that quote.

Why do these idiots go into buildings that don't allow guns? Because they know law-abiding citizens won't be armed and will be defenseless. They wouldn't be able to inflict the maximum carnage they want to before being stopped. When these idiots do this kind of stuff, they want to take as many people with them; they don't want resistance.

It's like I told a friend of mine yesterday... you hear about these inicdents occurring in theaters, schools/colleges, in/outside federal buildings, musuems, post offices, on job sites, and malls all the time (even in a hair salon a couple of months ago), but you don't ever hear of these nut-cases going into gun-shops and trying to gun everyone down.

Know why? Because usually, the shop owner, all his/her employees, and many of the customers are also armed.

[PIMking]

Originally Posted by Minister_of_Information

Sorry, but you just can't put guns in the classroom. Put them in the principal's office or dean's office along with trained personnel.

I've been wanting Conceal carry on campus and by reading the UA rule book it says unlicensed and unathorized cant carry on campus sice I have my Conceal Carry License does that mean I can carry on campus? to them no, to the law yes. I don't want to get expelled, since that is all they can do to me.

But CCW holders should be able to carry on a college campus concealed, they're of age (so no 18 year olds living in dorms) and most would be national guardsmen ect so why should the imaginary line stop us from protecting ourselves? I don't want to hear people say drugs and alcohol since if you have alcohol in your system your ccw is null and void and if you concede that using illicit drugs is okay but legally carrying a weapon with a license isn't then you (not you MOI) need to have your priorities checked.

College campus's are weird, you have different buildings with no way of knowing if the people walking around are even students there. So some crazy with a few pistols in a backpack could walk into a building on campus and just nuts. But since they have this imaginary line saying I cant protect myself the school will be sued out of their wazoo if I were injured or killed for failing to provide proper security.

Allow those who legally can carry to carry and protect ourselves.

[Minister_of_Information]

I'm speaking about classrooms full of minor children. Haven't thought the college scenario through, but not sure students should be packing heat there either.

[DSRrg]

Originally Posted by Minister_of_Information

Sorry, but you just can't put guns in the classroom. Put them in the principal's office or dean's office along with trained personnel.

Why can't the trained personnel be the teachers?

[Minister_of_Information]

Originally Posted by DSRrg

Why can't the trained personnel be the teachers?

Do I really need to explain what might happen with a roomful of children and a single adult are combined with firearms?

[The_Graygator]

Originally Posted by Minister_of_Information

I'm speaking about classrooms full of minor children. Haven't thought the college scenario through, but not sure students should be packing heat there either.

No, students don't need to be armed or carrying weapons to school. That's a matter of parents to train their children.

But I've been saying this for some time, to have the teachers go through training courses with guns (voluntarily of course), and perhaps several of them always concealed carrying (depending upon school size).

No one has to know which teachers are armed or even took the training course, and signs placed outside the school that there are armed teachers to protect the students.

I've been through a few sessions with law enforcement friends of mine in their training camps just to see what they do, and the training can be very extensive and informative. Any teachers taking these courses would be properly trained to handle a situation like a nut-case coming into a school just to shoot and kill everyone.

And in most cases, with the proper training, an armed teacher would take out a gunman with only one or two shots while the gunman is expending ammo in the dozens or even hundreds of rounds.

They would be able to see where an intruder would come in and then make a viable plan to stop them if it happened.

[The_Graygator]

Originally Posted by Minister_of_Information

Sorry, but you just can't put guns in the classroom. Put them in the principal's office or dean's office along with trained personnel.

Where do you think the masscre occurred? In the classroom. That's where his targets are, in the classrooms.

Apparently, nut-case gunmen in these situations have no problem bringing weapons into the classrooms.

Armed security or teachers trained to conceal carry is the best way to protect the kids.

[Minister_of_Information]

I just think the risk is too high to place freely circulating firearms that close to children. Put them in the administrative offices and give those people training. At least then schools wouldn't be soft targets.

[Dreamliner]

Originally Posted by The_Graygator

Where do you think the masscre occurred? In the classroom. That's where his targets are, in the classrooms.

Apparently, nut-case gunmen in these situations have no problem bringing weapons into the classrooms.

Armed security or teachers trained to conceal carry is the best way to protect the kids.

Gray, you're missing the point. This was a Gun-Free Zone. You're not allowed to bring guns into a Gun-Free Zone!

[mdgator05]

Originally Posted by The_Graygator

Hit the nail on the head with that quote.

Why do these idiots go into buildings that don't allow guns? Because they know law-abiding citizens won't be armed and will be defenseless. They wouldn't be able to inflict the maximum carnage they want to before being stopped. When these idiots do this kind of stuff, they want to take as many people with them; they don't want resistance.

It's like I told a friend of mine yesterday... you hear about these inicdents occurring in theaters, schools/colleges, in/outside federal buildings, musuems, post offices, on job sites, and malls all the time (even in a hair salon a couple of months ago), but you don't ever hear of these nut-cases going into gun-shops and trying to gun everyone down.

Know why? Because usually, the shop owner, all his/her employees, and many of the customers are also armed.

This opinion doesn't stand up to scientific scrutiny.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/...nd-killed.html

Packing heat may backfire. People who carry guns are far likelier to get shot – and killed – than those who are unarmed, a study of shooting victims in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, has found.

It would be impractical – not to say unethical – to randomly assign volunteers to carry a gun or not and see what happens. So Charles Branas's team at the University of Pennsylvania analysed 677 shootings over two-and-a-half years to discover whether victims were carrying at the time, and compared them to other Philly residents of similar age, sex and ethnicity. The team also accounted for other potentially confounding differences, such as the socioeconomic status of their neighbourhood.

Overall, Branas's study found that people who carried guns were 4.5 times as likely to be shot and 4.2 times as likely to get killed compared with unarmed citizens. When the team looked at shootings in which victims had a chance to defend themselves, their odds of getting shot were even higher.

While it may be that the type of people who carry firearms are simply more likely to get shot, it may be that guns give a sense of empowerment that causes carriers to overreact in tense situations, or encourages them to visit neighbourhoods they probably shouldn't, Branas speculates.Supporters of the Second Amendment shouldn't worry that the right to bear arms is under threat, however. "We don't have an answer as to whether guns are protective or perilous," Branas says. "This study is a beginning."

So gun owners are being shot more often than non-gun owners. Causal effects still need more work, but the idea that places without guns are more dangerous doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

[gatordavisl]

Originally Posted by DSRrg

Why can't the trained personnel be the teachers?

There are just too many reasons to cite, but here are a few:

1) Under extreme circumstances, humans often seek extreme resolutions. This notion of placing guns in the classrooms, let alone guns elsewhere in the schools, is not being thought out. I am not referring to the school police security officers, who DO pack heat.

2) I worked in public schools for ten years and there are so many teachers I would not wish to have a gun. Not merely because of mental issues, but because they were too physically frail to be able to successfully engage in a gun battle.

3) The amount of training necessary would not be cost or time effective. The number one priority of teachers IS the safety of children, but education of the children comes next and we cannot afford to compromise this priority.

4) Such an agenda, on any scale, might produce more guns on the market. I feel there are plenty of guns available today. I don't feel the answer is MORE guns. And I'm sure this will be the most contentious point, which I understand.

In my not so humble opinion, placing guns in schools would be far more problematic than preventative. To presume otherwise demonstrates a lack of understanding regarding the nature of schools and education.

[Minister_of_Information]

Originally Posted by The_Graygator

Where do you think the masscre occurred? In the classroom. That's where his targets are, in the classrooms.

Apparently, nut-case gunmen in these situations have no problem bringing weapons into the classrooms.

Armed security or teachers trained to conceal carry is the best way to protect the kids.

Start thinking about the numbers of teachers, guns, and students versus what you are trying to prevent. Then realize that at some end of the spectrum you have negligent teachers and students (and teachers) who are capable of violence. Heck, think about the number of teachers that are banging their students and being caught. There's definitely the likelihood of unintended consequences.

[DaveFla]

Originally Posted by rivergator

Were the video games used to killed the kids?

For christ's sake, river. Could you possibly be any more obtuse?

[DaveFla]

Originally Posted by Minister_of_Information

I'm speaking about classrooms full of minor children. Haven't thought the college scenario through, but not sure students should be packing heat there either.

From one of my alma maters...

http://www.news-journalonline.com/ar...NEWS/312069989

[Dreamliner]

Originally Posted by mdgator05

This opinion doesn't stand up to scientific scrutiny.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/...nd-killed.html





So gun owners are being shot more often than non-gun owners. Causal effects still need more work, but the idea that places without guns are more dangerous doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

R-i-g-h-t, because bad guys are breaking into homes, and when the homeowner raises a gun to defend herself, she freezes, and the bad guy wrestles the gun away from her and then kills her with it.

Happens all the time. If you are so unfortunate as to own a gun, even if you're trained to use it, you're going to panic and then the gun is going to be wrested from your hands to kill you.

In fact, bad guys know this happens so frequently that they don't even carry guns themselves anymore. They'll just wait for you to freeze, then take it away from you and shoot you.

[Minister_of_Information]

There could be a number of causal or correlated factors with that statistic. But losing one's weapon and being shot by it is not an unprecedented event.

[The_Graygator]

Originally Posted by Minister_of_Information

I just think the risk is too high to place freely circulating firearms that close to children. Put them in the administrative offices and give those people training. At least then schools wouldn't be soft targets.

You're entirely missing the point here because, and with offense intended, you don't understand the concept of concealed carry. Concealed carry is not "free-circulating firearms" everywhere, especially not if the concelaed carriers are trained.

Attend some classes and see this for yourself. You'd probably learn a lot.

[The_Graygator]

Originally Posted by Dreamliner

Gray, you're missing the point. This was a Gun-Free Zone. You're not allowed to bring guns into a Gun-Free Zone!

Oops! lol

[Minister_of_Information]

Originally Posted by The_Graygator

You're entirely missing the point here because, and with offense intended, you don't understand the concept of concealed carry. Concealed carry is not "free-circulating firearms" everywhere, especially not if the concelaed carriers are trained.

Attend some classes and see this for yourself. You'd probably learn a lot.

Gray, your objections are noted. And dismissed.

It would help if the pro gun side didn't come across as nutballs lacking common sense, as well as powers of critical thinking.