27 dead at Connecticut Elementary School

[bionicarm]

Quote:
Originally Posted by SCSInet http:///t/393788/27-dead-at-connecticut-elementary-school/240#post_3504972
My contention is that for every one of these horrible acts that is committed with a particular type of gun, there are millions more of them in the hands of safe, responsible gun owners, who will never use those weapons for anything but safe, responsible, and legal uses, and who will never allow those weapons to fall into the hands of those who would, and that has value. My contention is that to be so cavalier about disregarding legal uses because what some sick, twisted individual does with a very, very miniscule percentage of them is not looking at the complete picture. What happened in that school is beyond words, and if the other responsible gun owners out there feel the same way I do, they are as sick over the whole thing as you are. However, I remain unconvinced that the type of gun control that is being proposed will do anything to stop the problem, and in the end, the only ones who get hurt are the responsible gun owners.
Your words above seem to suggest that every "assault weapon" out there is just waiting it's turn to be involved in the next massacre, and/or that every legal gun owner out there is just a ticking bomb waiting to snap. I remain taken aback by the assertion (by many) that the only reason someone wants to own guns is because they want to shoot someone. There is a word for that, and it's a word that people on the left are very opposed to: profiling.
However, your post reveals why this is such a problem for you to understand.
You read a post where I said "Sorry, not if I have anything to say about it." or me use the word "pushback" and immediately infer that I am talking about violence (ostensibly, gun violence).
Just because someone owns guns or supports gun rights does not mean they have any tendency to use those weapons for anything unlawful. I know you don't know me, but frankly the idea that I would do as you imply is disgusting, and you're way out of line for so much as hinting at it.
You obviously are convinced that gun owners only have one agenda in mind, and that's to take the first opportunity to start shooting people. It may surprise you to hear this, but there are gun owners out there who prefer to settle a disagreement without whipping out a weapon (or even a fist), there are gun owners who realize that we are not in the old west, and there are gun owners who are as disgusted wtih gun violence as you are. I OWN guns and I'm not afraid of the other gun owners. Why? Because I can protect myself? No. Though I am licensed to do so, I don't even carry. I am nothing more than another everyday American who actually has a respect for the enormously unique and special thing that is America, and the protection of rights and liberties. You can't realize what something is worth until you learn to respect it, but you apparently do not.
This may surprise you, but I spent the first half of my life in fear of weapons. The first time a friend told me he bought a gun, I told him he was not welcome on my property if he had any weapons with him, and told him flat out that I thought his desire to purchase one was due to his feeling "inadequate down there." Instead of getting mad at me, he told me to go out and try to learn about the subject objectively and get back to him. I did so, and it changed everything. Maybe you should consider doing the same.
Your argument sounds like it cane straight out of an NRA Handbook. Yes, I am fully aware of the multitude of "responsible gun owners" out there that do follow the rules, and only draw their weapons for self defense or when potentially threatened. However, there's just as many out there that don't have a clue what that means, and would pull a gun out and start firing for some unwarranted reason. Then you have the people that have some sort of "brain snap" and they get hold of multiple weapons and go on some shooting spree. You may have been offended by my response, but the fact of the matter is, I don't know you from Adam. My only interface with you is on this little fish forum. So because you say you would never us your weapons in a illegal manner, I'm supposed to believe you. Tell you what. Grab your weapons and go post a video on YouTube making that exact statement, and end it with referencing how you are" Sorry, not if I have anything to say about it." or " you are going to get pushback". See if you get a call from your local authorities. You may find this utterly ridiciulous, but believe me, no one is taking any type of jokes about potential gun violence any longer. In the last 3 days, we've had three kids in San Antonio taken in for questionng. One was sitting at lunch talking to some kids saying "Wouldn't it be weird if tomorrow (Dec. 21st) someone would run into our school and start shooting up the place because he thought the world was going to end?" Another kid posted on his Facebook how he was ticked at some teacher, and wished someone would "take her out". Then they caught some kid in middle chool with an unloaded handgun in his backpack. Were they just joking around? Who knows. But I guaantee you they wish they'd never open their mouths, posted that comment, or stuck that gun in their backpack.

 

[bionicarm]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Darthtang AW http:///t/393788/27-dead-at-connecticut-elementary-school/240#post_3504986
Raise the tax on assault weapons and divert that money to education. I would have no issue paying a 35% tax for an assault weapon if I chose to purchase one. I would even be willing to pay 10% ammunition tax.
See that is the problem with anti-gun crowd, BAN THEM! No, that will not prevent this situation. Everyone knows this. our biggest problem in this country is deficits...borrowing...not enough tax revenue. here is a way to pay for stuff, but instead...the option to ban is done instead....We tried this with alcohol, granted it had a much bigger market) and then we lifted the ban.Instead we raised the tax on alcohol and cigarettes...I have no issue paying more for something if I really want it.
Alot of you say government should not legislate social or moral decisions. Owning a gun is a moral decision.
Owning a gun is a moral decision? I thought it was a Constitutional right.

 

[flower]

Quote:
Originally Posted by 2Quills http:///t/393788/27-dead-at-connecticut-elementary-school/260#post_3505029
Sometimes I wish we would just take care of our own. But The United States is supposed to be a nation of open doors isn't it? Couldn't we do something else that would deprive the children who can't help their circumstance? Some of those kids may stay here and be our next Pulitzer prize winner or something.
Well everyone has already made their comments and since nothing else is really going on in the forum...I will chime in too.
My heart says the same things yours does...I could never be in immigration, a police officer or a business person. One person says "I need, or I want for my child" and my heart melts straight away. There is an equal chance of that little child growing up to be a Pulitzer price winner, or to grow up to be a serial killer. Helping a kid because of what they might grow up to be is just silly. We help because it feels like the right thing to do when others ask for help.
How far can a person be helped before you hurt your own family? Truth is if we have food, clothing, and can stay warm from the cold, we have enough to survive. Most of us want more in life than to just survive. So while others are struggling just to survive, we WORK hard to live in brick houses, have two cars and a freezer filled with food. I am willing to share with the freeloaders (those who can't or won't work) and the not so well off that live in places where poverty is a way of life...to a point. As to what that point is not my job to decide, thank goodness! Also many hard working people want more in life than what I'm willing to let go, so we all must live with our choices.
We are indeed blessed to live where we do. My late husband was always complaining that we had less then others, I told him he was very rich, he just didn't realize it. There are people who have their whole families living in a single room hut, sleeping on the dirt floor and eat dung beetles for a meal.

 

[bionicarm]

Quote:
Originally Posted by 2Quills http:///t/393788/27-dead-at-connecticut-elementary-school/260#post_3505001
Sorry, was going to make a point and then had to run out real quick.
Let me get this strait because I'm really trying to understand your position here at this particular point in time.
I don't have children but I'm assuming that you do. And right now I have guns but I'm assuming that you don't. Or at least not yet.
So in order for me to enjoy my freedoms, I'm the one who has to pay in order to protect your kid, correct? Even though, you want to get a gun the odds are you will probably take the little course, learn how to properly handle a weapon and then go out and get you one. After that you will probably stick it in a small safe and keep it next to your bed and then virtually never touch it. So in order for me to enjoy my freedoms I'm going to have to be the one to pay to keep your kids safe when you come out on the cheap end even though you want to be a gun owner. Yeah, I guess I would be ok with that too if I were in your shoes. But ya know what? That's fine. I'll pay the extra money if it helps our nations youth.
Your "freedoms" are getting innocent people killed.
What's laughable is you people sit here ranting over 10 or so threads about that ridiculous NRA decision to "arm" schools. OK, load them up to the bear with weapons. Then instead of these maniacs shooting up schools, they'll just start firing at them in the neighborhood parks, the malls, the grocery stores, the movie theaters. They may even find an inventive way to get a bunch of weapons into an amusement park. So are you going to require all these businesses to post armed guards at all their entrances? Who do you think will pick up that expense? Oh wait, we're going to arm every single person who has a trigger finger with a gun, let them get a CCW, then we'll all be protected. How would that have worked in the Aurora theater shootings? The guy came in through the back door after the lights went down, and started tossing smoke bombs before proceeding to shoot up the place. You're sitting there with you soda and popcorn with your gun strapped to you side, and all of a sudden this starts up. You duck and draw your weapon. But so does three or four more CCW carriers. You're looking through the smoke and see a person holding a gun. Is that the shooter, or just another "responsible gun owner" protecting himself? Do you try and wait to make a clean shot at the original shooter, or just start firing in the direction of the gun fire where you can't see anything because of the smoke? You may actually get lucky and nail the guy. Unfortunately, he's not completely down because he's wearing full-body armor. Also, after the melee is over, they find 3 or 4 casulaties with bullets in them that didn't match any of the assailants weapons. Was that yours, the other CCW's gun? This is just one example.
I was at Bass Pro Shops yesterday, and I overheard a salesman talking to another customer how the day after the Newton shooting, they sold 76 guns in one day. He had this braggart tone and even stated, "Yea, that day was better than what we had on Black Friday!" Never mind innocent people were killed, he gets a Christmas bonus because he was top gun seller for the day! So now you have 100's of individuals that run to these gun shops scared because the media is touting how no one is safe any longer, and they walk in a buy whatever gun the salesman can talk them into purchasing. Then they walk out the door with this gun and a couple boxes of shells, and go home and pull out the simplistic manual to read and see how the thing works. Then maybe a couple days later, they go down to their local shooting range, open the box, pull everything out, and try to figure out how to load it, cock it, and take the safety off. They start shooting the thing, and maybe hit part of the target with the first 20 rounds, then after 50 or so, they actually get close to the bullseye. Now they're ready to go to CCW training. So they find some CCW instructor who posts a class in the classifieds or on Groupon, and schedule to go. They sit through the 11 hours of instruction, then actually get a couple of hours of shooting with someone who actually knows something about their gun, then a few days later they get the official "license" that allows them to stick their gun under their car seat, in their middle console, or even in a holster that they can wear under their shirt. Most likely, they'll just take their gun home, stick it in a drawer, and not touch it again for another couple months. THESE are the people you're going to depend on when one of these tragedies strike again. THESE are the people who are going to pull their weapons out and attempt to protect themselves and you when some maniac goes on another shooting spree. Hope you know how to duck. You're more likely to get shot by one of these "responsible gun owners" before getting hit by the guy that started the shooting.

 

[reefraff]

Quote:
Originally Posted by bionicarm http:///t/393788/27-dead-at-connecticut-elementary-school/280#post_3505063
Your "freedoms" are getting innocent people killed.
What's laughable is you people sit here ranting over 10 or so threads about that ridiculous NRA decision to "arm" schools. OK, load them up to the bear with weapons. Then instead of these maniacs shooting up schools, they'll just start firing at them in the neighborhood parks, the malls, the grocery stores, the movie theaters. They may even find an inventive way to get a bunch of weapons into an amusement park. So are you going to require all these businesses to post armed guards at all their entrances? Who do you think will pick up that expense? Oh wait, we're going to arm every single person who has a trigger finger with a gun, let them get a CCW, then we'll all be protected. How would that have worked in the Aurora theater shootings? The guy came in through the back door after the lights went down, and started tossing smoke bombs before proceeding to shoot up the place. You're sitting there with you soda and popcorn with your gun strapped to you side, and all of a sudden this starts up. You duck and draw your weapon. But so does three or four more CCW carriers. You're looking through the smoke and see a person holding a gun. Is that the shooter, or just another "responsible gun owner" protecting himself? Do you try and wait to make a clean shot at the original shooter, or just start firing in the direction of the gun fire where you can't see anything because of the smoke? You may actually get lucky and nail the guy. Unfortunately, he's not completely down because he's wearing full-body armor. Also, after the melee is over, they find 3 or 4 casulaties with bullets in them that didn't match any of the assailants weapons. Was that yours, the other CCW's gun? This is just one example.
I was at Bass Pro Shops yesterday, and I overheard a salesman talking to another customer how the day after the Newton shooting, they sold 76 guns in one day. He had this braggart tone and even stated, "Yea, that day was better than what we had on Black Friday!" Never mind innocent people were killed, he gets a Christmas bonus because he was top gun seller for the day! So now you have 100's of individuals that run to these gun shops scared because the media is touting how no one is safe any longer, and they walk in a buy whatever gun the salesman can talk them into purchasing. Then they walk out the door with this gun and a couple boxes of shells, and go home and pull out the simplistic manual to read and see how the thing works. Then maybe a couple days later, they go down to their local shooting range, open the box, pull everything out, and try to figure out how to load it, cock it, and take the safety off. They start shooting the thing, and maybe hit part of the target with the first 20 rounds, then after 50 or so, they actually get close to the bullseye. Now they're ready to go to CCW training. So they find some CCW instructor who posts a class in the classifieds or on Groupon, and schedule to go. They sit through the 11 hours of instruction, then actually get a couple of hours of shooting with someone who actually knows something about their gun, then a few days later they get the official "license" that allows them to stick their gun under their car seat, in their middle console, or even in a holster that they can wear under their shirt. Most likely, they'll just take their gun home, stick it in a drawer, and not touch it again for another couple months. THESE are the people you're going to depend on when one of these tragedies strike again. THESE are the people who are going to pull their weapons out and attempt to protect themselves and you when some maniac goes on another shooting spree. Hope you know how to duck. You're more likely to get shot by one of these "responsible gun owners" before getting hit by the guy that started the shooting.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bionicarm http:///t/393788/27-dead-at-connecticut-elementary-school/280#post_3505063
Your "freedoms" are getting innocent people killed.
What's laughable is you people sit here ranting over 10 or so threads about that ridiculous NRA decision to "arm" schools. OK, load them up to the bear with weapons. Then instead of these maniacs shooting up schools, they'll just start firing at them in the neighborhood parks, the malls, the grocery stores, the movie theaters. They may even find an inventive way to get a bunch of weapons into an amusement park. So are you going to require all these businesses to post armed guards at all their entrances? Who do you think will pick up that expense? Oh wait, we're going to arm every single person who has a trigger finger with a gun, let them get a CCW, then we'll all be protected. How would that have worked in the Aurora theater shootings? The guy came in through the back door after the lights went down, and started tossing smoke bombs before proceeding to shoot up the place. You're sitting there with you soda and popcorn with your gun strapped to you side, and all of a sudden this starts up. You duck and draw your weapon. But so does three or four more CCW carriers. You're looking through the smoke and see a person holding a gun. Is that the shooter, or just another "responsible gun owner" protecting himself? Do you try and wait to make a clean shot at the original shooter, or just start firing in the direction of the gun fire where you can't see anything because of the smoke? You may actually get lucky and nail the guy. Unfortunately, he's not completely down because he's wearing full-body armor. Also, after the melee is over, they find 3 or 4 casulaties with bullets in them that didn't match any of the assailants weapons. Was that yours, the other CCW's gun? This is just one example.
I was at Bass Pro Shops yesterday, and I overheard a salesman talking to another customer how the day after the Newton shooting, they sold 76 guns in one day. He had this braggart tone and even stated, "Yea, that day was better than what we had on Black Friday!" Never mind innocent people were killed, he gets a Christmas bonus because he was top gun seller for the day! So now you have 100's of individuals that run to these gun shops scared because the media is touting how no one is safe any longer, and they walk in a buy whatever gun the salesman can talk them into purchasing. Then they walk out the door with this gun and a couple boxes of shells, and go home and pull out the simplistic manual to read and see how the thing works. Then maybe a couple days later, they go down to their local shooting range, open the box, pull everything out, and try to figure out how to load it, cock it, and take the safety off. They start shooting the thing, and maybe hit part of the target with the first 20 rounds, then after 50 or so, they actually get close to the bullseye. Now they're ready to go to CCW training. So they find some CCW instructor who posts a class in the classifieds or on Groupon, and schedule to go. They sit through the 11 hours of instruction, then actually get a couple of hours of shooting with someone who actually knows something about their gun, then a few days later they get the official "license" that allows them to stick their gun under their car seat, in their middle console, or even in a holster that they can wear under their shirt. Most likely, they'll just take their gun home, stick it in a drawer, and not touch it again for another couple months. THESE are the people you're going to depend on when one of these tragedies strike again. THESE are the people who are going to pull their weapons out and attempt to protect themselves and you when some maniac goes on another shooting spree. Hope you know how to duck. You're more likely to get shot by one of these "responsible gun owners" before getting hit by the guy that started the shooting.
How many people will die from an assault weapon look alikes in a year? More people are killed every day by drunk drivers than were killed in Newtown. So I ask again. Why single out "Assault Weapons"? Last I knew the average was about 40 a year over time. Drunk drivers kill over 10,000 each and every year.
And the rush on guns is because the people fear progressive jackasses will ban the weapons they would like to own. Heck, just think about this as a stimulus package that actually works LOL!

 

[2quills]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Darthtang AW http:///t/393788/27-dead-at-connecticut-elementary-school/260#post_3505052
Touching on this, would you allow you neighbors to break into you house and live with you, just because your house was better? Or would you ensure your own families livilihood first then help your neighbor where you could? Just a simple question.
I wonder if the Native Americans asked themselves this same question while our ancestors were taking over their land.

 

[2quills]

Quote:
Originally Posted by reefraff http:///t/393788/27-dead-at-connecticut-elementary-school/260#post_3505051
Yes, we are lucky and when every one born in this country. And when those who were born here, or legally immigrated here are working and getting enough to eat we can consider helping out Mexican and South American citizens. But what happens if we keep spending billions on services to people who didn't respect our laws and entered the country illegally? Sooner or later our economy is going to be in such a state we wont be able to help our own citizens, let alone another country's.
I don't disagree that it's a problem. But how about stopping these people from getting in illegally in the first place and then we wouldn't have to take anything away from innocent children. It's harder to miss something that you never had then to have it taken away. To me that would be the more moral thing to do.

 

[darthtang aw]

I wonder if the Native Americans asked themselves this same question while our ancestors were taking over their land.
Actually, the native Americans didn't believe you own land. This concept was foreign to them. And after so many land treaties the caught on and did fight back.

 

[2quills]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Darthtang AW http:///t/393788/27-dead-at-connecticut-elementary-school/280#post_3505074
Actually, the native Americans didn't believe you own land. This concept was foreign to them. And after so many land treaties the caught on and did fight back.
So at some point in time they must have said "hey, we were here first". And you being born here were completely innocent to the fact that your parent or "ancestors" invaded a land when they didn't have some piece of paper saying that it already belonged to them. So you (by default) ended up living here in a great nation because your ancestors didn't give a crap about who lived here first. They were simply seeking a better life for themselves and their families. Fortunately for them the native americans didn't posses the same technological advances that we did in order to defend themselves against what was coming at them.
So I'll ask you, Darth. Do you think that the moral thing to do here is to send all these kids who are already here back home? Or do we educate them in hopes that they can have a better understanding about what is going on and possibly that they may help to make this world a better place whether it's in our country or theirs for the future?

 

[reefraff]

Quote:
Originally Posted by 2Quills http:///t/393788/27-dead-at-connecticut-elementary-school/280#post_3505073
I don't disagree that it's a problem. But how about stopping these people from getting in illegally in the first place and then we wouldn't have to take anything away from innocent children. It's harder to miss something that you never had then to have it taken away. To me that would be the more moral thing to do.
Yeah bit that's like saying if someone breaks into your vacation home and squats there 6 months before you find out you are going to let them stay because their kids got used to it. That don't fly with me. I begrudgingly think a restrictive form of the dream act would make sense but I would only give out work Visas that can only be renewed of the person has started the process of becoming a legal citizen. I'd require a clean criminal record and proof they were in school here by the time they were 12

 

[darthtang aw]

So at some point in time they must have said "hey, we were here first".  And you being born here were completely innocent to the fact that your parent or "ancestors" invaded a land when they didn't have some piece of paper saying that it already belonged to them.  So you (by default) ended up living here in a great nation because your ancestors didn't give a crap about who lived here first.  They were simply seeking a better life for themselves and their families.  Fortunately for them the native americans didn't posses the same technological advances that we did in order to defend themselves against what was coming at them.
So I'll ask you, Darth.  Do you think that the moral thing to do here is to send all these kids who are already here back home?  Or do we educate them in hopes that they can have a better understanding about what is going on and possibly that they may help to make this world a better place whether it's in our country or theirs for the future?
No I do not con done sending them back...When I have more time I will give my thoughts on how to handle the issue. I recommend starting a new thread for that discussion.

 

[2quills]

Quote:
Originally Posted by reefraff http:///t/393788/27-dead-at-connecticut-elementary-school/280#post_3505077
Yeah bit that's like saying if someone breaks into your vacation home and squats there 6 months before you find out you are going to let them stay because their kids got used to it. That don't fly with me. I begrudgingly think a restrictive form of the dream act would make sense but I would only give out work Visas that can only be renewed of the person has started the process of becoming a legal citizen. I'd require a clean criminal record and proof they were in school here by the time they were 12
It's an ugly, mixed up mess. And the reality is that there are a lot of them don't turn out to be pulitzer or nobel price winners for that matter. And where I live now I see a lot of it first hand. But I have met a few who I really sympathize for their situation. And if you've heard the horror stories of where some of them come from then I'm sure you could understand how I feel about it the way I do.
But your idea is one option for paying for more security. From an outsiders perspective I think I would like the idea that if I were a parent and my kids were still in school that at least there was someone there at the school how might have been able to give more kids a chance for survival in such a case. But I can only imagine how some parents must feel right now and how terrified they must be of the idea of more guns around their children. I like the idea of having a locked safe with restricted access. It may be less costly with a far greater chance of avoiding having a teacher over taken by some crazed student who forces them to unlock a metal box in a classroom where a gun is kept. But these are things that the parents should decide. Not me or Bionic alone.

 

[scsinet]

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheClemsonKid http:///t/393788/27-dead-at-connecticut-elementary-school/240#post_3504981
Assumes that now because every school has an armed guard, a crazy person wouldn't want to try and pull a Newtown again.
Yeah, that sounds about right...
While I see your point in the other things you said in your post, what I don't understand is how you can think that armed guards won't deter someone, yet a ban on weapons would.

 

[scsinet]

Quote:
Originally Posted by bionicarm http:///t/393788/27-dead-at-connecticut-elementary-school/280#post_3505058
Your argument sounds like it cane straight out of an NRA Handbook. Yes, I am fully aware of the multitude of "responsible gun owners" out there that do follow the rules, and only draw their weapons for self defense or when potentially threatened. However, there's just as many out there that don't have a clue what that means, and would pull a gun out and start firing for some unwarranted reason.
First of all, I am not an NRA member, I do not read their literature.
Second, are you seriously suggesting that for every responsible gun owner, there is another gun owner who is just waiting for the chance to use their gun illegally? While there are no statistics to back it up, I seriously doubt that of the estimated 300 million guns in this country, that 150 million of them are in the hands of lunatics. The guns that are in the hands of responsible individuals are the guns you never hear about. I guess if you fail to consider that, and only pay attention to the atrocities, then I can see where you are getting this perspective.
Quote:
You may have been offended by my response, but the fact of the matter is, I don't know you from Adam. My only interface with you is on this little fish forum. So because you say you would never us your weapons in a illegal manner, I'm supposed to believe you.
I am offended because just because I indicate that I do not want to sit idly by and allow laws to be passed without any sort of argument from me, that this automatically means I am suggesting violence. NEWS FLASH: Not everyone who owns guns has any desire to use them for violence, and not everyone who sees a tragedy like Sandy Hook happen sees it as an opportunity to expand gun ownership. I never said you had to believe me, but I am offended by the fact that you don't know me, yet you assume that I'm violent. It was a stupidly low blow and frankly, astoundingly ignorant.
Quote:
Tell you what. Grab your weapons and go post a video on YouTube making that exact statement, and end it with referencing how you are" Sorry, not if I have anything to say about it." or " you are going to get pushback". See if you get a call from your local authorities. You may find this utterly ridiciulous, but believe me, no one is taking any type of jokes about potential gun violence any longer.
Ummm... what? You want me to validate your remarks by doing what now? Again, this is the problem with you and your attitude. You're seriously going to stand there and say "Ban! BAN BAN BAN!" and anyone who talks about standing in your way must be sitting there stroking their guns while doing so? Then you're going to actually suggest that I make a youtube video of that matches your imagined perspective? Do you want to send me a script? Any ideas for who would star in it? Wait... you already did suggest a script. Doing that would send a completely different message than me simply stating "Not if I have anything to say about it." So, you are asking me to make a video that fits the idea of what you had in your mind when you read my original post when I said that?
What offended me is your suggestion that as someone who owns guns, the only way I know how to deal with anything I disagree with is to start firing. The fact that you don't know me only serves to illustrate that this is not something unique about me, but it's the way you feel about all gun owners. Grow up.
I'm done engaging you in discussion. Your implications are vulgar and arguing with you is pointless.
Disclaimer that should be obvious but apparently needs mentioning: "I'm done engaging you in discussion" does not mean violence.
Special Note: I will not be making any youtube videos of me holding guns while saying that I am done engaging you in discussion.

 

[reefraff]

Quote:
Originally Posted by 2Quills http:///t/393788/27-dead-at-connecticut-elementary-school/280#post_3505080
It's an ugly, mixed up mess. And the reality is that there are a lot of them don't turn out to be pulitzer or nobel price winners for that matter. And where I live now I see a lot of it first hand. But I have met a few who I really sympathize for their situation. And if you've heard the horror stories of where some of them come from then I'm sure you could understand how I feel about it the way I do.
But your idea is one option for paying for more security. From an outsiders perspective I think I would like the idea that if I were a parent and my kids were still in school that at least there was someone there at the school how might have been able to give more kids a chance for survival in such a case. But I can only imagine how some parents must feel right now and how terrified they must be of the idea of more guns around their children. I like the idea of having a locked safe with restricted access. It may be less costly with a far greater chance of avoiding having a teacher over taken by some crazed student who forces them to unlock a metal box in a classroom where a gun is kept. But these are things that the parents should decide. Not me or Bionic alone.
I grew up in Southern California. I have seen it first hand. I also saw how they drag things down. Did you know every hospital and courthouse in the country is required to have translators available? Last I looked the going rate was 40 an hour. Don't even get me started on bilingual education and such. The ones I have respect for are those guys who come over and live 8 guys to an apartment and send most of their pay back home to their families.
As far as arming the schools I think the enhanced CCW for staff members is the best solution. Having pistols in safes in a few locations around the school would work. The main thing is the deterrent factor. Knowing there is a chance of being confronted by someone with a gun might be enough to make someone change their mind. Heck that Oregon shooter who shot up the mall a few days before this killed himself after seeing an armed shopper drawing down on him. He ran into a hall and shot himself.

 

[reefraff]

Quote:
Originally Posted by SCSInet http:///t/393788/27-dead-at-connecticut-elementary-school/280#post_3505089
First of all, I am not an NRA member, I do not read their literature.
Second, are you seriously suggesting that for every responsible gun owner, there is another gun owner who is just waiting for the chance to use their gun illegally? While there are no statistics to back it up, I seriously doubt that of the estimated 300 million guns in this country, that 150 million of them are in the hands of lunatics. The guns that are in the hands of responsible individuals are the guns you never hear about. I guess if you fail to consider that, and only pay attention to the atrocities, then I can see where you are getting this perspective.
I am offended because just because I indicate that I do not want to sit idly by and allow laws to be passed without any sort of argument from me, that this automatically means I am suggesting violence. NEWS FLASH: Not everyone who owns guns has any desire to use them for violence, and not everyone who sees a tragedy like Sandy Hook happen sees it as an opportunity to expand gun ownership. I never said you had to believe me, but I am offended by the fact that you don't know me, yet you assume that I'm violent. It was a stupidly low blow and frankly, astoundingly ignorant.
Ummm... what? You want me to validate your remarks by doing what now? Again, this is the problem with you and your attitude. You're seriously going to stand there and say "Ban! BAN BAN BAN!" and anyone who talks about standing in your way must be sitting there stroking their guns while doing so? Then you're going to actually suggest that I make a youtube video of that matches your imagined perspective? Do you want to send me a script? Any ideas for who would star in it? Wait... you already did suggest a script. Doing that would send a completely different message than me simply stating "Not if I have anything to say about it." So, you are asking me to make a video that fits the idea of what you had in your mind when you read my original post when I said that?
What offended me is your suggestion that as someone who owns guns, the only way I know how to deal with anything I disagree with is to start firing. The fact that you don't know me only serves to illustrate that this is not something unique about me, but it's the way you feel about all gun owners. Grow up.
I'm done engaging you in discussion. Your implications are vulgar and arguing with you is pointless.
Disclaimer that should be obvious but apparently needs mentioning: "I'm done engaging you in discussion" does not mean violence.
Special Note: I will not be making any youtube videos of me holding guns while saying that I am done engaging you in discussion.
It just goes to show you left wingers are the biggest bigots in the world. Anyone who doesn't think like them is a racist, homophobe, gun nut etc. You can't just be someone with a different opinion

 

[acrylic51]

Quote:
Originally Posted by SnakeBlitz33 http:///t/393788/27-dead-at-connecticut-elementary-school/260#post_3505038
Arm the teachers! Plain and simple - let the teachers have a metal lock box with a combo and key and if they hear shots fired and want to protect themselves - let em' rip! Isn't it a right to self defense?
(Seth I have to agree and disagree on you with this one......Just because you have a teacher or whoever certified and they hear gun fire....I surely don't want someone that has only sat through a class of instruction trying to defend innocent children.....The certification doesn't mean squat unless you are comfortable and proficient with that weapon....)
Let the teachers go through the gun courses - and be certified. Those teachers that want to participate get an extra 1k a year instead of paying a security guard 30k a year to do nothing but eat doughnuts and stair at the high school girls. Then there should be multiple gun certified personnel on campus to take down these little twits who think they can be the next mass murderer.
Putting security details at every school is the illusion of security. It's not true security and never will be. Locking your kids in an institution with armed guards for eight hours a day is not beneficial to their self esteem, well being, stress levels, and so on and so forth as a kid growing up. There is too much crap already going on in kids lives to have to worry about going to jail for 8 hours a day five days a week.
If you really want to do something about this "problem" that we face as a society, nip it in the bud where it really counts. (Seth your exactly right.....society is the problem.....It's obvious there is a large group of people that have no self respect for themselves and definitely not for others....This attitude or perception is really obvious in the upcoming generation....I don't agree or buy the "old addage" of music.....I'm a black guy who has listened to nothing, but heavy metal, death metal from like 12-13, and I've never had thoughts of causing harm to anyone or myself.....I think the key is how we were raised.....I guess some of us in this world never learned right from wrong.....)Violence on television, violent video games, violent and sexual based music, tv, ... "reality" shows that are farther from reality than anything. A typical American child will witness approximately 16,000 violent deaths on television alone by their 18th birthday. If you want to do something about it - crack down on drugs in school and these s*x parties that teens are having. Crack down on bullying and create an atmosphere where being intelligent is not a "bad" thing.
Guns don't kill people, people kill people. I believe in that 100%. (You are absolutely correct....Guns don't kill people; people kill people that's were I don't understand were all these anti gun or whatever they want to call themselves draw their conclusions.....If you take guns away the next crazed lunatic will find other means so we'll then ban that, and it will continue.....Honestly do you want to rely on just the police or our military do defend us......Definitely not. The problems again as you stated is society....The laws we have in place don't discourage, because there not stiff enough....Again a coward such as Lanza and the others that take their own lives afterwards, but the ones that don't why doesn't society set an example as to what you will get for actions such as this.....Oh cause we have a bunch of soft, weak minded individuals that cry about human rights, and Geneva and Hague.....) Adam Lanza and any other person like him is a product of our society. I wouldn't be surprised if things like this didn't start happening at a greater frequency as our population increases and if the media goes unchecked.

 

[acrylic51]

Quote:
Originally Posted by bionicarm http:///t/393788/27-dead-at-connecticut-elementary-school/280#post_3505063
Your "freedoms" are getting innocent people killed.

What's laughable is you people sit here ranting over 10 or so threads about that ridiculous NRA decision to "arm" schools. OK, load them up to the bear with weapons. Then instead of these maniacs shooting up schools, they'll just start firing at them in the neighborhood parks, the malls, the grocery stores, the movie theaters. They may even find an inventive way to get a bunch of weapons into an amusement park. So are you going to require all these businesses to post armed guards at all their entrances? Who do you think will pick up that expense? Oh wait, we're going to arm every single person who has a trigger finger with a gun, let them get a CCW, then we'll all be protected. How would that have worked in the Aurora theater shootings? The guy came in through the back door after the lights went down, and started tossing smoke bombs before proceeding to shoot up the place. You're sitting there with you soda and popcorn with your gun strapped to you side, and all of a sudden this starts up. You duck and draw your weapon. But so does three or four more CCW carriers. You're looking through the smoke and see a person holding a gun. Is that the shooter, or just another "responsible gun owner" protecting himself? Do you try and wait to make a clean shot at the original shooter, or just start firing in the direction of the gun fire where you can't see anything because of the smoke? You may actually get lucky and nail the guy. Unfortunately, he's not completely down because he's wearing full-body armor. Also, after the melee is over, they find 3 or 4 casulaties with bullets in them that didn't match any of the assailants weapons. Was that yours, the other CCW's gun? This is just one example.
I was at Bass Pro Shops yesterday, and I overheard a salesman talking to another customer how the day after the Newton shooting, they sold 76 guns in one day. He had this braggart tone and even stated, "Yea, that day was better than what we had on Black Friday!" Never mind innocent people were killed, he gets a Christmas bonus because he was top gun seller for the day! So now you have 100's of individuals that run to these gun shops scared because the media is touting how no one is safe any longer, and they walk in a buy whatever gun the salesman can talk them into purchasing. Then they walk out the door with this gun and a couple boxes of shells, and go home and pull out the simplistic manual to read and see how the thing works. Then maybe a couple days later, they go down to their local shooting range, open the box, pull everything out, and try to figure out how to load it, cock it, and take the safety off. They start shooting the thing, and maybe hit part of the target with the first 20 rounds, then after 50 or so, they actually get close to the bullseye. Now they're ready to go to CCW training. So they find some CCW instructor who posts a class in the classifieds or on Groupon, and schedule to go. They sit through the 11 hours of instruction, then actually get a couple of hours of shooting with someone who actually knows something about their gun, then a few days later they get the official "license" that allows them to stick their gun under their car seat, in their middle console, or even in a holster that they can wear under their shirt. Most likely, they'll just take their gun home, stick it in a drawer, and not touch it again for another couple months. THESE are the people you're going to depend on when one of these tragedies strike again. THESE are the people who are going to pull their weapons out and attempt to protect themselves and you when some maniac goes on another shooting spree. Hope you know how to duck. You're more likely to get shot by one of these "responsible gun owners" before getting hit by the guy that started the shooting.
Your kidding right!!!!!

 

[bionicarm]

Quote:
Originally Posted by reefraff http:///t/393788/27-dead-at-connecticut-elementary-school/280#post_3505068
How many people will die from an assault weapon look alikes in a year? More people are killed every day by drunk drivers than were killed in Newtown. So I ask again. Why single out "Assault Weapons"? Last I knew the average was about 40 a year over time. Drunk drivers kill over 10,000 each and every year.
And the rush on guns is because the people fear progressive jackasses will ban the weapons they would like to own. Heck, just think about this as a stimulus package that actually works LOL!
You're right reef. Let's ban all those "killer cars". While we're at it, let's ban those knives and bats. Then tell me. Can you drive your gun to work, to the store, acros town? Can your gun cut your steak, chop your vegatables, butter your bread? Banning bats would upset some Little Leaguers and Multi-million dollar baseball players, but maybe they can turn a Mauser around and hit the ball with the stock? The difference with these items and guns is they are used evry day for PRACTICAL PURPOSES. Guns have one purpose and one purpoe only, TO INFLICT DAMAGE TO THE TARGET IT I AIMED AT.
You seem to be stuck on stupid about your idiotic auto analogy. CARS ARE DRIVEN 100,000 TIMES MORE PER DAY THAN A FRICKIN' GUN IS SHOT!!!!!! IT'S CALLED THE LAW OF AVERAGES!!! You moronic NeoCon gun freaks need to find another excuse.
The rush is by a bunch of incompetent morons that listen to the scare tacics from people like you. They're probably the same one's who thought the world was going to end on Friday. Ninety percent of these people probably had little desire to "own a gun". They just got convinced listening to Limbaugh and Hannity that they can't even walk outside anymore for the fear someone with an assault weapon is going to take a shot at them.

 

[bionicarm]

Quote:
Originally Posted by reefraff http:///t/393788/27-dead-at-connecticut-elementary-school/280#post_3505095
I grew up in Southern California. I have seen it first hand. I also saw how they drag things down. Did you know every hospital and courthouse in the country is required to have translators available? Last I looked the going rate was 40 an hour. Don't even get me started on bilingual education and such. The ones I have respect for are those guys who come over and live 8 guys to an apartment and send most of their pay back home to their families.
As far as arming the schools I think the enhanced CCW for staff members is the best solution. Having pistols in safes in a few locations around the school would work. The main thing is the deterrent factor. Knowing there is a chance of being confronted by someone with a gun might be enough to make someone change their mind. Heck that Oregon shooter who shot up the mall a few days before this killed himself after seeing an armed shopper drawing down on him. He ran into a hall and shot himself.
Go look up the chain of events at Columbine. There were two officers that responded and shot at those two kids, and they couldn't put them down before they killed themselves. My school district has had armed district officers at all our schools for years. There's 73 right now that rotate between the various elementary, middle, and high schools. Since my kids have been in that system, there's been about 20 incidences of weapons being brought to school, three or four instances of weapons going off. Fortunately there were no deaths and only a few injuries. Was it luck? Who knows. But the fact is, even with officers present, guns came to the school.
Some school up around Dallas or West Texas has teachers walking around with guns as we speak. District approved it years ago. Has an incident like the Newtown one not occurred there because of it, or is it because some idiot hasn't gotten around to trying? I hope we'll never have to find out which theory is the right one.