CCW
- Thread starter darthtang aw
- Start date
bionicarm
Active Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by acrylic51 http:///t/393837/ccw#post_3505224
Bionicarm, I think that is most gun owners position here......You will never eliminate casualties, but will minimize the casualties IMO.....What if the CCW individual could have gotten a clean; clear shot when he first drew his weapon.....The may lay would have been over rather quickly......And the CCW individual was correct in his actions IMO.....Would you have had it any other way........
Sticking people in schools with CCW's is not the answer. The problem is, 90% of these individual's aren't mentally prepared or properly trained to use those weapons in scenarios like Sandy Hook and Aurora. When it comes to mass shootings, there's really no training available that can fully prepare you for those situations. Even firearm experts and trained police officers will admit to you that they have reservations going into a situation like that. Now you want to throw inexperienced gun owners into the mix. If you'd had several CCW carriers with their weapons in that Aurora theater massacre, you'd probably would've read how one or more of them would've been shot by yet another carrier. The lights were down, the guy threw smoke grenades into the theater before he started shooting, and you had mass chaos with people running in every direction. You pull your weapon, pop up to look where the shooter is, and you see someone else pointing a firearm, swinging it left and right looking for a target. Is that the good guy, or the bad guy? Do you aim your weapon at him and yell "Drop your weapon", and he turns and aims his firearm at you, do you fire, make some jesture you're a "good guy", or duck? In the meantime, the real bad guy sees you, and you're now the latest casualty. I guess it's a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" scenario.
Originally Posted by acrylic51 http:///t/393837/ccw#post_3505224
Bionicarm, I think that is most gun owners position here......You will never eliminate casualties, but will minimize the casualties IMO.....What if the CCW individual could have gotten a clean; clear shot when he first drew his weapon.....The may lay would have been over rather quickly......And the CCW individual was correct in his actions IMO.....Would you have had it any other way........
Sticking people in schools with CCW's is not the answer. The problem is, 90% of these individual's aren't mentally prepared or properly trained to use those weapons in scenarios like Sandy Hook and Aurora. When it comes to mass shootings, there's really no training available that can fully prepare you for those situations. Even firearm experts and trained police officers will admit to you that they have reservations going into a situation like that. Now you want to throw inexperienced gun owners into the mix. If you'd had several CCW carriers with their weapons in that Aurora theater massacre, you'd probably would've read how one or more of them would've been shot by yet another carrier. The lights were down, the guy threw smoke grenades into the theater before he started shooting, and you had mass chaos with people running in every direction. You pull your weapon, pop up to look where the shooter is, and you see someone else pointing a firearm, swinging it left and right looking for a target. Is that the good guy, or the bad guy? Do you aim your weapon at him and yell "Drop your weapon", and he turns and aims his firearm at you, do you fire, make some jesture you're a "good guy", or duck? In the meantime, the real bad guy sees you, and you're now the latest casualty. I guess it's a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" scenario.
While I don't support armed officers patrolling the hallways of schools, it just doesn't make sense that anyone can walk in and out of schools. There are more criminals then crazed shooters. You have dope dealers, pedophiles, etc. There should be a way that everyone who comes into a school is ok-ed to be there. I can't believe that parents would be against such security in their children's school.
acrylic51
Active Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beth http:///t/393837/ccw/20#post_3505265
While I don't support armed officers patrolling the hallways of schools, it just doesn't make sense that anyone can walk in and out of schools. There are more criminals then crazed shooters. You have dope dealers, pedophiles, etc. There should be a way that everyone who comes into a school is ok-ed to be there.
Trust me it's not super easy to walk in and out of schools at least where I live, and I think it this situation he didn't walk in, from what I've heard he shot his way in......I deliver to the local schools in my area at least 3X a week and I'm know, and they see the big UPS truck and still doesn't get me instantly buzzed in.......
Quote:
Originally Posted by bionicarm http:///t/393837/ccw/20#post_3505263
Sticking people in schools with CCW's is not the answer. The problem is, 90% of these individual's aren't mentally prepared or properly trained to use those weapons in scenarios like Sandy Hook and Aurora. When it comes to mass shootings, there's really no training available that can fully prepare you for those situations. Even firearm experts and trained police officers will admit to you that they have reservations going into a situation like that. Now you want to throw inexperienced gun owners into the mix. If you'd had several CCW carriers with their weapons in that Aurora theater massacre, you'd probably would've read how one or more of them would've been shot by yet another carrier. The lights were down, the guy threw smoke grenades into the theater before he started shooting, and you had mass chaos with people running in every direction. You pull your weapon, pop up to look where the shooter is, and you see someone else pointing a firearm, swinging it left and right looking for a target. Is that the good guy, or the bad guy? Do you aim your weapon at him and yell "Drop your weapon", and he turns and aims his firearm at you, do you fire, make some jesture you're a "good guy", or duck? In the meantime, the real bad guy sees you, and you're now the latest casualty. I guess it's a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" scenario.
I guess your right in a sense, but who ever is prepared to take someones life.....Do you think all of us that went to war were prepared, or all the young men and women were sending now are prepared.....Heck the military has more training than your average police department has, and it's still chaotic......
Not saying the situation would be clean, clear and concise, but what your asking or wanting is to take away individuals options or rights, to suit your fear or phobia that this will solve the problem.....Heck why not ban sports cars, lets ban alcohol while were at it.....Oh.......The ban on alcohol might just infringe on a bit of "enjoyment" you might like from time to time.....Would that be ok, that we do that, because a few can't behave and follow rules......
Originally Posted by Beth http:///t/393837/ccw/20#post_3505265
While I don't support armed officers patrolling the hallways of schools, it just doesn't make sense that anyone can walk in and out of schools. There are more criminals then crazed shooters. You have dope dealers, pedophiles, etc. There should be a way that everyone who comes into a school is ok-ed to be there.
Trust me it's not super easy to walk in and out of schools at least where I live, and I think it this situation he didn't walk in, from what I've heard he shot his way in......I deliver to the local schools in my area at least 3X a week and I'm know, and they see the big UPS truck and still doesn't get me instantly buzzed in.......
Quote:
Originally Posted by bionicarm http:///t/393837/ccw/20#post_3505263
Sticking people in schools with CCW's is not the answer. The problem is, 90% of these individual's aren't mentally prepared or properly trained to use those weapons in scenarios like Sandy Hook and Aurora. When it comes to mass shootings, there's really no training available that can fully prepare you for those situations. Even firearm experts and trained police officers will admit to you that they have reservations going into a situation like that. Now you want to throw inexperienced gun owners into the mix. If you'd had several CCW carriers with their weapons in that Aurora theater massacre, you'd probably would've read how one or more of them would've been shot by yet another carrier. The lights were down, the guy threw smoke grenades into the theater before he started shooting, and you had mass chaos with people running in every direction. You pull your weapon, pop up to look where the shooter is, and you see someone else pointing a firearm, swinging it left and right looking for a target. Is that the good guy, or the bad guy? Do you aim your weapon at him and yell "Drop your weapon", and he turns and aims his firearm at you, do you fire, make some jesture you're a "good guy", or duck? In the meantime, the real bad guy sees you, and you're now the latest casualty. I guess it's a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" scenario.
I guess your right in a sense, but who ever is prepared to take someones life.....Do you think all of us that went to war were prepared, or all the young men and women were sending now are prepared.....Heck the military has more training than your average police department has, and it's still chaotic......
Not saying the situation would be clean, clear and concise, but what your asking or wanting is to take away individuals options or rights, to suit your fear or phobia that this will solve the problem.....Heck why not ban sports cars, lets ban alcohol while were at it.....Oh.......The ban on alcohol might just infringe on a bit of "enjoyment" you might like from time to time.....Would that be ok, that we do that, because a few can't behave and follow rules......
theclemsonkid
Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beth http:///t/393837/ccw/20#post_3505265
While I don't support armed officers patrolling the hallways of schools, it just doesn't make sense that anyone can walk in and out of schools. There are more criminals then crazed shooters. You have dope dealers, pedophiles, etc. There should be a way that everyone who comes into a school is ok-ed to be there. I can't believe that parents would be against such security in their children's school.
Yeah in the districts around here, all the schools are under lock and key, and you don't get it unless you are buzzed in through a secure area. Now granted I have no idea what the situation was like at Newtown, but I don't think it's a coincidence that Columbine and Newtown were both higher income areas, where they probably felt more "Secure", which means less locked doors to get through. Funny how this never happens in the hood where every other kid is packing...
Originally Posted by Beth http:///t/393837/ccw/20#post_3505265
While I don't support armed officers patrolling the hallways of schools, it just doesn't make sense that anyone can walk in and out of schools. There are more criminals then crazed shooters. You have dope dealers, pedophiles, etc. There should be a way that everyone who comes into a school is ok-ed to be there. I can't believe that parents would be against such security in their children's school.
Yeah in the districts around here, all the schools are under lock and key, and you don't get it unless you are buzzed in through a secure area. Now granted I have no idea what the situation was like at Newtown, but I don't think it's a coincidence that Columbine and Newtown were both higher income areas, where they probably felt more "Secure", which means less locked doors to get through. Funny how this never happens in the hood where every other kid is packing...
theclemsonkid
Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by reefraff http:///t/393837/ccw#post_3505100
So then why is it that as government has grown larger and more intrusive, including more regulations on capitalism, things have gotten worse?
30 some odd years ago I worked jobs that required working holidays. That is nothing new and there isn't a damned thing wrong with it. Once upon a time workers in this country understood you worked your way up the corporate ladder. Jobs like working at Walmart have never paid well yet you see them demonized for not paying enough to support a family. NEWS FLASH! Working entry level, low skills jobs has never been enough to support a family. People used to wait to have kids until they had worked their way to a point where they themselves could afford to support their kids.
I totally disagree with that. My great grandparents, grandparents, and even my parents (early on), all had what you call "entry level" jobs, and they all had families with multiple children and did just fine. Well enough to have their own home, a new car every few years, regularly go on two weeks of vacation. On top of that, none of the women in my family worked after children, so you basically had one income as enough to run and entire household. I'm all for working hard to achieve better things (I regularly put in 65 hour weeks), but you can't even pretend that corporate America gives two s**ts about their employees. A prime example is that of the whole "Black Friday" phenomenon of the past five years. In 2007, stores opened at 6am on Friday for their sales. In 2009, stores started opening at 4am for their sales. Last year, stores started opening at midnight Thursday night for their sales. This year, places were opening at 9pm Thanksgiving evening. Even five years ago, the people at the top had enough decency to say "you know what, our employees deserve to spend some time with their FAMILY". Then, in typical capitalistic fashion, someone somewhere said "I could care less about these people, and if we open earlier we'll make more money". Then of course when one company does it, everyone else has to in order to stay competitive. When it comes to manufacturing, I get it. You have no choice but to send your manufacturing overseas, because if you don't, someone else will. When it comes to retail shopping, that's a whole different story. If you decide to stay closed across the board till Friday morning, your employees could actually see their families, and people won't hop on a plane to go to China to shop 12 hours early.
I'm not typically the "demise of family" guy, but you really have to start wondering if it's not a little true. I was very fortunate to have a Mom and a Dad who worked regular hours and were home most of the time. Because of that, I'm a fairly successful business owner, and my sister in an attorney in Manhattan. Scores and scores of others aren't so lucky, and that's why places like Walmart are a disgrace. Sure, they are offering employment, but at what cost? A lot of their employees have multiple children at home, and a recent study showed that over 65% of the families were "one parent" households. So, when they are dragging people in to work on Thanksgiving, and Christmas, and every other hour of the day; where do you think their kids are? Would you be ok as a GM or CFO of Walmart knowing that your policies are dragging the American family even further into the mud by taking away their parents?
The easy answer to that is a resounding "yes". The fact is, those people who make that kind of money, and those kind of decisions live in a completely different world than you and I ever will, to where I don't honestly think they even have feelings anymore. It's the sociopathic tendencies of those decisions that are bringing this country to it's knees. And don't say "it has to be that way in order to make a company successful". While that is partially true, it's not entirely true. How many billions do you need? Is it worth it to you, Mr. CEO, if you make an additional 10 million this year, at the expense of the minions? A few decades back, the answer was more likely no than yes. Ask that question now a days, and I think you know the answer...
Originally Posted by reefraff http:///t/393837/ccw#post_3505100
So then why is it that as government has grown larger and more intrusive, including more regulations on capitalism, things have gotten worse?
30 some odd years ago I worked jobs that required working holidays. That is nothing new and there isn't a damned thing wrong with it. Once upon a time workers in this country understood you worked your way up the corporate ladder. Jobs like working at Walmart have never paid well yet you see them demonized for not paying enough to support a family. NEWS FLASH! Working entry level, low skills jobs has never been enough to support a family. People used to wait to have kids until they had worked their way to a point where they themselves could afford to support their kids.
I totally disagree with that. My great grandparents, grandparents, and even my parents (early on), all had what you call "entry level" jobs, and they all had families with multiple children and did just fine. Well enough to have their own home, a new car every few years, regularly go on two weeks of vacation. On top of that, none of the women in my family worked after children, so you basically had one income as enough to run and entire household. I'm all for working hard to achieve better things (I regularly put in 65 hour weeks), but you can't even pretend that corporate America gives two s**ts about their employees. A prime example is that of the whole "Black Friday" phenomenon of the past five years. In 2007, stores opened at 6am on Friday for their sales. In 2009, stores started opening at 4am for their sales. Last year, stores started opening at midnight Thursday night for their sales. This year, places were opening at 9pm Thanksgiving evening. Even five years ago, the people at the top had enough decency to say "you know what, our employees deserve to spend some time with their FAMILY". Then, in typical capitalistic fashion, someone somewhere said "I could care less about these people, and if we open earlier we'll make more money". Then of course when one company does it, everyone else has to in order to stay competitive. When it comes to manufacturing, I get it. You have no choice but to send your manufacturing overseas, because if you don't, someone else will. When it comes to retail shopping, that's a whole different story. If you decide to stay closed across the board till Friday morning, your employees could actually see their families, and people won't hop on a plane to go to China to shop 12 hours early.
I'm not typically the "demise of family" guy, but you really have to start wondering if it's not a little true. I was very fortunate to have a Mom and a Dad who worked regular hours and were home most of the time. Because of that, I'm a fairly successful business owner, and my sister in an attorney in Manhattan. Scores and scores of others aren't so lucky, and that's why places like Walmart are a disgrace. Sure, they are offering employment, but at what cost? A lot of their employees have multiple children at home, and a recent study showed that over 65% of the families were "one parent" households. So, when they are dragging people in to work on Thanksgiving, and Christmas, and every other hour of the day; where do you think their kids are? Would you be ok as a GM or CFO of Walmart knowing that your policies are dragging the American family even further into the mud by taking away their parents?
The easy answer to that is a resounding "yes". The fact is, those people who make that kind of money, and those kind of decisions live in a completely different world than you and I ever will, to where I don't honestly think they even have feelings anymore. It's the sociopathic tendencies of those decisions that are bringing this country to it's knees. And don't say "it has to be that way in order to make a company successful". While that is partially true, it's not entirely true. How many billions do you need? Is it worth it to you, Mr. CEO, if you make an additional 10 million this year, at the expense of the minions? A few decades back, the answer was more likely no than yes. Ask that question now a days, and I think you know the answer...
reefraff
Active Member
Entry level jobs have never paid enough to support a family. NEVER!!! I was around in the 60's and early 70's when the stay at home mom was still the norm. Grocery and department store checkers were mostly women. Fast food places were mostly school kids etc. All people who weren't the sole breadwinners for their family. My mom would barmaid once in a while for extra money. She sure couldn't support the family on it.
My dad left Utah after high school and got a job as a gofer for Nixon Brothers. Maybe the name is familiar to you LOL! Anyway he had met the woman who would be his first wife but wouldn't marry her because he didn't make enough money to support her. Her dad lined him up with a job on a drilling rig so they could afford to get married. that was in the late 1940's.
I don't know where you younger people get these crazy ideas about life back in the good ol days. It was easier to find a job out of high school where you could work your way up the ladder to a comfortable living but you did still have to work your way up. Working on holidays is nothing new. I did it when I worked for 7-11 and when I ran the gas stations too. That was all back in the late 70's and early 80's.
My dad left Utah after high school and got a job as a gofer for Nixon Brothers. Maybe the name is familiar to you LOL! Anyway he had met the woman who would be his first wife but wouldn't marry her because he didn't make enough money to support her. Her dad lined him up with a job on a drilling rig so they could afford to get married. that was in the late 1940's.
I don't know where you younger people get these crazy ideas about life back in the good ol days. It was easier to find a job out of high school where you could work your way up the ladder to a comfortable living but you did still have to work your way up. Working on holidays is nothing new. I did it when I worked for 7-11 and when I ran the gas stations too. That was all back in the late 70's and early 80's.
acrylic51
Active Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheClemsonKid http:///t/393837/ccw/20#post_3505277
I totally disagree with that. My great grandparents, grandparents, and even my parents (early on), all had what you call "entry level" jobs, and they all had families with multiple children and did just fine. Well enough to have their own home, a new car every few years, regularly go on two weeks of vacation. On top of that, none of the women in my family worked after children, so you basically had one income as enough to run and entire household. I'm all for working hard to achieve better things (I regularly put in 65 hour weeks), but you can't even pretend that corporate America gives two s**ts about their employees. A prime example is that of the whole "Black Friday" phenomenon of the past five years. In 2007, stores opened at 6am on Friday for their sales. In 2009, stores started opening at 4am for their sales. Last year, stores started opening at midnight Thursday night for their sales. This year, places were opening at 9pm Thanksgiving evening. Even five years ago, the people at the top had enough decency to say "you know what, our employees deserve to spend some time with their FAMILY". Then, in typical capitalistic fashion, someone somewhere said "I could care less about these people, and if we open earlier we'll make more money". Then of course when one company does it, everyone else has to in order to stay competitive. When it comes to manufacturing, I get it. You have no choice but to send your manufacturing overseas, because if you don't, someone else will. When it comes to retail shopping, that's a whole different story. If you decide to stay closed across the board till Friday morning, your employees could actually see their families, and people won't hop on a plane to go to China to shop 12 hours early.
I'm not typically the "demise of family" guy, but you really have to start wondering if it's not a little true. I was very fortunate to have a Mom and a Dad who worked regular hours and were home most of the time. Because of that, I'm a fairly successful business owner, and my sister in an attorney in Manhattan. Scores and scores of others aren't so lucky, and that's why places like Walmart are a disgrace. Sure, they are offering employment, but at what cost? A lot of their employees have multiple children at home, and a recent study showed that over 65% of the families were "one parent" households. So, when they are dragging people in to work on Thanksgiving, and Christmas, and every other hour of the day; where do you think their kids are? Would you be ok as a GM or CFO of Walmart knowing that your policies are dragging the American family even further into the mud by taking away their parents?
The easy answer to that is a resounding "yes". The fact is, those people who make that kind of money, and those kind of decisions live in a completely different world than you and I ever will, to where I don't honestly think they even have feelings anymore. It's the sociopathic tendencies of those decisions that are bringing this country to it's knees. And don't say "it has to be that way in order to make a company successful". While that is partially true, it's not entirely true. How many billions do you need? Is it worth it to you, Mr. CEO, if you make an additional 10 million this year, at the expense of the minions? A few decades back, the answer was more likely no than yes. Ask that question now a days, and I think you know the answer...
I agree and disagree with both you and Reef on certain things.....I do agree with Clemson on the Black Friday, and other holiday shopping, and the pure disregard to the American Family......I do see Reefs' point as he witnessed working and such on holidays in the "good ole days".....Reef you have to honestly admit it was no where near the shear volume that we see today......You'd be lying if you say so......
Again Clemson we have to look at the times and environments that we live in these days, and bottom line quite frankly it does come down to dollars and cents to those above.....I think it was Bang that made a comment somewhere about the American employee being "less loyal" than older generations.....I think that is totally untrue.....Back in the day if you talk to older people the mindset was stay and work hard and be rewarded, but today that isn't the mentality.....I believe part of that is "higher up" has lost touch with it's everyday employees that make things happen....They are so caught up in pleasing stock holders. So no there isn't much loyalty nowadays between employee and employer IMHO.....Most big companies will sell the little guy down the river for a profit, and there's no excuse for that. Again times and environments have changed between then and now.....I think most employees have the same mentality that they must look out for themselves because the companies aren't.....That I see for fact first hand everyday.....
How many times have you seen huge corporate American company make decisions off what looks good on paper, but make no sense when implemented, but you have some over paid dumba$$ figuring he knows better and has never done the job.....It's all about numbers.....The guys on the line don't matter, and the line guy knows you could show the idiots up top what is wrong, but unless the higher ups are made to believe they've come up with the magical solution, it will never change.
Originally Posted by TheClemsonKid http:///t/393837/ccw/20#post_3505277
I totally disagree with that. My great grandparents, grandparents, and even my parents (early on), all had what you call "entry level" jobs, and they all had families with multiple children and did just fine. Well enough to have their own home, a new car every few years, regularly go on two weeks of vacation. On top of that, none of the women in my family worked after children, so you basically had one income as enough to run and entire household. I'm all for working hard to achieve better things (I regularly put in 65 hour weeks), but you can't even pretend that corporate America gives two s**ts about their employees. A prime example is that of the whole "Black Friday" phenomenon of the past five years. In 2007, stores opened at 6am on Friday for their sales. In 2009, stores started opening at 4am for their sales. Last year, stores started opening at midnight Thursday night for their sales. This year, places were opening at 9pm Thanksgiving evening. Even five years ago, the people at the top had enough decency to say "you know what, our employees deserve to spend some time with their FAMILY". Then, in typical capitalistic fashion, someone somewhere said "I could care less about these people, and if we open earlier we'll make more money". Then of course when one company does it, everyone else has to in order to stay competitive. When it comes to manufacturing, I get it. You have no choice but to send your manufacturing overseas, because if you don't, someone else will. When it comes to retail shopping, that's a whole different story. If you decide to stay closed across the board till Friday morning, your employees could actually see their families, and people won't hop on a plane to go to China to shop 12 hours early.
I'm not typically the "demise of family" guy, but you really have to start wondering if it's not a little true. I was very fortunate to have a Mom and a Dad who worked regular hours and were home most of the time. Because of that, I'm a fairly successful business owner, and my sister in an attorney in Manhattan. Scores and scores of others aren't so lucky, and that's why places like Walmart are a disgrace. Sure, they are offering employment, but at what cost? A lot of their employees have multiple children at home, and a recent study showed that over 65% of the families were "one parent" households. So, when they are dragging people in to work on Thanksgiving, and Christmas, and every other hour of the day; where do you think their kids are? Would you be ok as a GM or CFO of Walmart knowing that your policies are dragging the American family even further into the mud by taking away their parents?
The easy answer to that is a resounding "yes". The fact is, those people who make that kind of money, and those kind of decisions live in a completely different world than you and I ever will, to where I don't honestly think they even have feelings anymore. It's the sociopathic tendencies of those decisions that are bringing this country to it's knees. And don't say "it has to be that way in order to make a company successful". While that is partially true, it's not entirely true. How many billions do you need? Is it worth it to you, Mr. CEO, if you make an additional 10 million this year, at the expense of the minions? A few decades back, the answer was more likely no than yes. Ask that question now a days, and I think you know the answer...
I agree and disagree with both you and Reef on certain things.....I do agree with Clemson on the Black Friday, and other holiday shopping, and the pure disregard to the American Family......I do see Reefs' point as he witnessed working and such on holidays in the "good ole days".....Reef you have to honestly admit it was no where near the shear volume that we see today......You'd be lying if you say so......
Again Clemson we have to look at the times and environments that we live in these days, and bottom line quite frankly it does come down to dollars and cents to those above.....I think it was Bang that made a comment somewhere about the American employee being "less loyal" than older generations.....I think that is totally untrue.....Back in the day if you talk to older people the mindset was stay and work hard and be rewarded, but today that isn't the mentality.....I believe part of that is "higher up" has lost touch with it's everyday employees that make things happen....They are so caught up in pleasing stock holders. So no there isn't much loyalty nowadays between employee and employer IMHO.....Most big companies will sell the little guy down the river for a profit, and there's no excuse for that. Again times and environments have changed between then and now.....I think most employees have the same mentality that they must look out for themselves because the companies aren't.....That I see for fact first hand everyday.....
How many times have you seen huge corporate American company make decisions off what looks good on paper, but make no sense when implemented, but you have some over paid dumba$$ figuring he knows better and has never done the job.....It's all about numbers.....The guys on the line don't matter, and the line guy knows you could show the idiots up top what is wrong, but unless the higher ups are made to believe they've come up with the magical solution, it will never change.
reefraff
Active Member
Oh I ain't saying Kmart, Sears, The Treasury, Penny's, Wards etc. were making their employees work on Thanksgiving. But Restaurants, convienience stores, gas station and businesses like that were open. So were movie theaters, hotels, casinos, playhouses and a lot of other businesses.
bionicarm
Active Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beth http:///t/393837/ccw/20#post_3505265
While I don't support armed officers patrolling the hallways of schools, it just doesn't make sense that anyone can walk in and out of schools. There are more criminals then crazed shooters. You have dope dealers, pedophiles, etc. There should be a way that everyone who comes into a school is ok-ed to be there. I can't believe that parents would be against such security in their children's school.
My daughter's high school has an open courtyard that has direct access from both the student and teacher's parking lots. You have to walk through the thing to get to the Admissions and Principal's office. None of the building are secure. I used to drop my daughter's off at the student parking lot, and they'd walk right into the nearest building. The elementary and middle school buildings are more secure, but the older one's aren't locked down by any means.
Originally Posted by Beth http:///t/393837/ccw/20#post_3505265
While I don't support armed officers patrolling the hallways of schools, it just doesn't make sense that anyone can walk in and out of schools. There are more criminals then crazed shooters. You have dope dealers, pedophiles, etc. There should be a way that everyone who comes into a school is ok-ed to be there. I can't believe that parents would be against such security in their children's school.
My daughter's high school has an open courtyard that has direct access from both the student and teacher's parking lots. You have to walk through the thing to get to the Admissions and Principal's office. None of the building are secure. I used to drop my daughter's off at the student parking lot, and they'd walk right into the nearest building. The elementary and middle school buildings are more secure, but the older one's aren't locked down by any means.
bionicarm
Active Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by acrylic51 http:///t/393837/ccw/20#post_3505266
Trust me it's not super easy to walk in and out of schools at least where I live, and I think it this situation he didn't walk in, from what I've heard he shot his way in......I deliver to the local schools in my area at least 3X a week and I'm know, and they see the big UPS truck and still doesn't get me instantly buzzed in.......
I guess your right in a sense, but who ever is prepared to take someones life.....Do you think all of us that went to war were prepared, or all the young men and women were sending now are prepared.....Heck the military has more training than your average police department has, and it's still chaotic......
Not saying the situation would be clean, clear and concise, but what your asking or wanting is to take away individuals options or rights, to suit your fear or phobia that this will solve the problem.....Heck why not ban sports cars, lets ban alcohol while were at it.....Oh.......The ban on alcohol might just infringe on a bit of "enjoyment" you might like from time to time.....Would that be ok, that we do that, because a few can't behave and follow rules......
The difference is, we don't live in a "war zone". At least I don't. Having a CCW and a firearm on your possession presents a false sense of security. I know a bunch of people who have CHL's, and half the time they don't take their gun with them when they leave the house. It's like anything else. You go through the motions of getting licensed, then you start going to the gun range once every other week to get used to shooting your gun, then it's once a month, then it's once every three months.... Sooner or later the gun is stuck back in the closet, your nightstand, or maybe a safe where it'll stay until you get another wild hair to shoot it again. I do the ame thing with golfing, mountain biking, and Hold 'Em Poker. Like any other hobby, you get bored with it.
We tried the banning of alcohol. That didn't work out too well. Here's one. Let's go on the premise that since cars kill people just as easily as guns, we'll give you a choice. To reduce the number of senseless deaths in this country, you have to ban on of these two deadly items. If you were given the choice to completely ban cars, or completely ban guns, which would you choose? We're doing this solely on the premise that cars kill more people than guns. So which do you cherish more? Your car or your guns?
Originally Posted by acrylic51 http:///t/393837/ccw/20#post_3505266
Trust me it's not super easy to walk in and out of schools at least where I live, and I think it this situation he didn't walk in, from what I've heard he shot his way in......I deliver to the local schools in my area at least 3X a week and I'm know, and they see the big UPS truck and still doesn't get me instantly buzzed in.......
I guess your right in a sense, but who ever is prepared to take someones life.....Do you think all of us that went to war were prepared, or all the young men and women were sending now are prepared.....Heck the military has more training than your average police department has, and it's still chaotic......
Not saying the situation would be clean, clear and concise, but what your asking or wanting is to take away individuals options or rights, to suit your fear or phobia that this will solve the problem.....Heck why not ban sports cars, lets ban alcohol while were at it.....Oh.......The ban on alcohol might just infringe on a bit of "enjoyment" you might like from time to time.....Would that be ok, that we do that, because a few can't behave and follow rules......
The difference is, we don't live in a "war zone". At least I don't. Having a CCW and a firearm on your possession presents a false sense of security. I know a bunch of people who have CHL's, and half the time they don't take their gun with them when they leave the house. It's like anything else. You go through the motions of getting licensed, then you start going to the gun range once every other week to get used to shooting your gun, then it's once a month, then it's once every three months.... Sooner or later the gun is stuck back in the closet, your nightstand, or maybe a safe where it'll stay until you get another wild hair to shoot it again. I do the ame thing with golfing, mountain biking, and Hold 'Em Poker. Like any other hobby, you get bored with it.
We tried the banning of alcohol. That didn't work out too well. Here's one. Let's go on the premise that since cars kill people just as easily as guns, we'll give you a choice. To reduce the number of senseless deaths in this country, you have to ban on of these two deadly items. If you were given the choice to completely ban cars, or completely ban guns, which would you choose? We're doing this solely on the premise that cars kill more people than guns. So which do you cherish more? Your car or your guns?
crimzy
Active Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darthtang AW http:///t/393837/ccw#post_3504898
Ok, we have discussed everything but this aspect. If everyone looks back at the recent and past mass shooting there is a glaring FACT that stands out. These are gun free zones. Do I condone open carry in these areas, no. But I feel these areas are targeted for these specific reasons. Every other area where mass shootings have been attempted that allow CCW on premises the deaths have been reduced considerably.
Examples.
-- Mayan Palace Theater, San Antonio, Texas, this week: Jesus Manuel Garcia shoots at a movie theater, a police car and bystanders from the nearby China Garden restaurant; as he enters the movie theater, guns blazing, an armed off-duty cop shoots Garcia four times, stopping the attack. Total dead: Zero.
-- Winnemucca, Nev., 2008: Ernesto Villagomez opens fire in a crowded restaurant; concealed carry permit-holder shoots him dead. Total dead: Two. (I'm excluding the shooters' deaths in these examples.)
-- Appalachian School of Law, 2002: Crazed immigrant shoots the dean and a professor, then begins shooting students; as he goes for more ammunition, two armed students point their guns at him, allowing a third to tackle him. Total dead: Three.
-- Santee, Calif., 2001: Student begins shooting his classmates -- as well as the "trained campus supervisor"; an off-duty cop who happened to be bringing his daughter to school that day points his gun at the shooter, holding him until more police arrive. Total dead: Two.
-- Pearl High School, Mississippi, 1997: After shooting several people at his high school, student heads for the junior high school; assistant principal Joel Myrick retrieves a .45 pistol from his car and points it at the gunman's head, ending the murder spree. Total dead: Two.
-- Edinboro, Pa., 1998: A student shoots up a junior high school dance being held at a restaurant; restaurant owner pulls out his shotgun and stops the gunman. Total dead: One.
In all of these instances the death toll was reduced and could have been far higher. Maybe, schools and other public venues should consider security with CCW training. It appears to atleast reduce the fatalities. Nothing we [put in place will ever completely prevent a murderer from committing a murder...but mass large scale shootings can be mitigated based off what I am seeing.
Discuss.
There's little doubt that people carrying weapons can mitigate the losses when you are facing a maniac intent on committing mass murder. Unfortunately I would suggest that the deaths from mass murderers is far more seldom than the pulling of a gun in a road-rage situation, or in some stupid altercation on a saturday night. I personally think that CCW permits are far too easy to obtain. If we assume that 90% of people just aren't that bright, then we are arming a bunch of morons to go out and live their lives.
Unfortunately, people also act differently when they are carrying, IMHO. In Michigan, a gun (or deadly force) can only be used in self defense if there is an imminent threat of deadly force. That means that if someone gets punched in the face then legally that gun should be left in the holster. But in reality, people are emboldened when they carry guns. They may provoke altercations, they may pull a weapon because they are simply weak or scared. A bunch more CCW's would probably cause a lot of situations to escalate where they otherwise wouldn't.
I realize that this is off topic of whether schools should have an armed guard because there is no legitimate debate on that one. Security is provided in every realm of society where valuable assets are kept, and children are the most valuable that a society has to offer. If you disagree with protection in schools then you are simply hopeless and need to seek out hypnosis or maybe acupuncture to fix whatever mental deficiency you might have...
Originally Posted by Darthtang AW http:///t/393837/ccw#post_3504898
Ok, we have discussed everything but this aspect. If everyone looks back at the recent and past mass shooting there is a glaring FACT that stands out. These are gun free zones. Do I condone open carry in these areas, no. But I feel these areas are targeted for these specific reasons. Every other area where mass shootings have been attempted that allow CCW on premises the deaths have been reduced considerably.
Examples.
-- Mayan Palace Theater, San Antonio, Texas, this week: Jesus Manuel Garcia shoots at a movie theater, a police car and bystanders from the nearby China Garden restaurant; as he enters the movie theater, guns blazing, an armed off-duty cop shoots Garcia four times, stopping the attack. Total dead: Zero.
-- Winnemucca, Nev., 2008: Ernesto Villagomez opens fire in a crowded restaurant; concealed carry permit-holder shoots him dead. Total dead: Two. (I'm excluding the shooters' deaths in these examples.)
-- Appalachian School of Law, 2002: Crazed immigrant shoots the dean and a professor, then begins shooting students; as he goes for more ammunition, two armed students point their guns at him, allowing a third to tackle him. Total dead: Three.
-- Santee, Calif., 2001: Student begins shooting his classmates -- as well as the "trained campus supervisor"; an off-duty cop who happened to be bringing his daughter to school that day points his gun at the shooter, holding him until more police arrive. Total dead: Two.
-- Pearl High School, Mississippi, 1997: After shooting several people at his high school, student heads for the junior high school; assistant principal Joel Myrick retrieves a .45 pistol from his car and points it at the gunman's head, ending the murder spree. Total dead: Two.
-- Edinboro, Pa., 1998: A student shoots up a junior high school dance being held at a restaurant; restaurant owner pulls out his shotgun and stops the gunman. Total dead: One.
In all of these instances the death toll was reduced and could have been far higher. Maybe, schools and other public venues should consider security with CCW training. It appears to atleast reduce the fatalities. Nothing we [put in place will ever completely prevent a murderer from committing a murder...but mass large scale shootings can be mitigated based off what I am seeing.
Discuss.
There's little doubt that people carrying weapons can mitigate the losses when you are facing a maniac intent on committing mass murder. Unfortunately I would suggest that the deaths from mass murderers is far more seldom than the pulling of a gun in a road-rage situation, or in some stupid altercation on a saturday night. I personally think that CCW permits are far too easy to obtain. If we assume that 90% of people just aren't that bright, then we are arming a bunch of morons to go out and live their lives.
Unfortunately, people also act differently when they are carrying, IMHO. In Michigan, a gun (or deadly force) can only be used in self defense if there is an imminent threat of deadly force. That means that if someone gets punched in the face then legally that gun should be left in the holster. But in reality, people are emboldened when they carry guns. They may provoke altercations, they may pull a weapon because they are simply weak or scared. A bunch more CCW's would probably cause a lot of situations to escalate where they otherwise wouldn't.
I realize that this is off topic of whether schools should have an armed guard because there is no legitimate debate on that one. Security is provided in every realm of society where valuable assets are kept, and children are the most valuable that a society has to offer. If you disagree with protection in schools then you are simply hopeless and need to seek out hypnosis or maybe acupuncture to fix whatever mental deficiency you might have...
reefraff
Active Member
CCW permit requirements vary by state but there are so very few incidents involving them the overall system must be pretty good. In the Oregon Mall shooting a CCW holder had a shot at the gunman but didn't take it because there were a couple people beyond his target. That was the correct decision. I don't know if that was part of the training or just good ol fashioned common sense. I wouldn't minds a federal base standard for the training required to get a permit but that would take working with gun rights groups that do a whole lot of firearms safety training.
reefraff
Active Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by bionicarm http:///t/393837/ccw/20#post_3505293
The difference is, we don't live in a "war zone". At least I don't. Having a CCW and a firearm on your possession presents a false sense of security. I know a bunch of people who have CHL's, and half the time they don't take their gun with them when they leave the house. It's like anything else. You go through the motions of getting licensed, then you start going to the gun range once every other week to get used to shooting your gun, then it's once a month, then it's once every three months.... Sooner or later the gun is stuck back in the closet, your nightstand, or maybe a safe where it'll stay until you get another wild hair to shoot it again. I do the ame thing with golfing, mountain biking, and Hold 'Em Poker. Like any other hobby, you get bored with it.
We tried the banning of alcohol. That didn't work out too well. Here's one. Let's go on the premise that since cars kill people just as easily as guns, we'll give you a choice. To reduce the number of senseless deaths in this country, you have to ban on of these two deadly items. If you were given the choice to completely ban cars, or completely ban guns, which would you choose? We're doing this solely on the premise that cars kill more people than guns. So which do you cherish more? Your car or your guns?
Painting with an awfully broad brush aren't we?
Originally Posted by bionicarm http:///t/393837/ccw/20#post_3505293
The difference is, we don't live in a "war zone". At least I don't. Having a CCW and a firearm on your possession presents a false sense of security. I know a bunch of people who have CHL's, and half the time they don't take their gun with them when they leave the house. It's like anything else. You go through the motions of getting licensed, then you start going to the gun range once every other week to get used to shooting your gun, then it's once a month, then it's once every three months.... Sooner or later the gun is stuck back in the closet, your nightstand, or maybe a safe where it'll stay until you get another wild hair to shoot it again. I do the ame thing with golfing, mountain biking, and Hold 'Em Poker. Like any other hobby, you get bored with it.
We tried the banning of alcohol. That didn't work out too well. Here's one. Let's go on the premise that since cars kill people just as easily as guns, we'll give you a choice. To reduce the number of senseless deaths in this country, you have to ban on of these two deadly items. If you were given the choice to completely ban cars, or completely ban guns, which would you choose? We're doing this solely on the premise that cars kill more people than guns. So which do you cherish more? Your car or your guns?
Painting with an awfully broad brush aren't we?
reefraff
Active Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bang Guy http:///t/393837/ccw/20#post_3505286
Ward's? Is that store still open?
Talking back in the day but I believe they are still in Canada.
Originally Posted by Bang Guy http:///t/393837/ccw/20#post_3505286
Ward's? Is that store still open?
Talking back in the day but I believe they are still in Canada.
acrylic51
Active Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by bionicarm http:///t/393837/ccw/20#post_3505293
The difference is, we don't live in a "war zone". At least I don't. Having a CCW and a firearm on your possession presents a false sense of security. I know a bunch of people who have CHL's, and half the time they don't take their gun with them when they leave the house. It's like anything else. You go through the motions of getting licensed, then you start going to the gun range once every other week to get used to shooting your gun, then it's once a month, then it's once every three months.... Sooner or later the gun is stuck back in the closet, your nightstand, or maybe a safe where it'll stay until you get another wild hair to shoot it again. I do the ame thing with golfing, mountain biking, and Hold 'Em Poker. Like any other hobby, you get bored with it.
We tried the banning of alcohol. That didn't work out too well. Here's one. Let's go on the premise that since cars kill people just as easily as guns, we'll give you a choice. To reduce the number of senseless deaths in this country, you have to ban on of these two deadly items. If you were given the choice to completely ban cars, or completely ban guns, which would you choose? We're doing this solely on the premise that cars kill more people than guns. So which do you cherish more? Your car or your guns?
That's a "dumb" question......Cars don't kill just as guns "don't" kill.....It's other extenuating circumstances and senseless people.....If you ban cars you couldn't exist....Meaning you wouldn't/couldn't get goods for society to survive or exist.....
Originally Posted by bionicarm http:///t/393837/ccw/20#post_3505293
The difference is, we don't live in a "war zone". At least I don't. Having a CCW and a firearm on your possession presents a false sense of security. I know a bunch of people who have CHL's, and half the time they don't take their gun with them when they leave the house. It's like anything else. You go through the motions of getting licensed, then you start going to the gun range once every other week to get used to shooting your gun, then it's once a month, then it's once every three months.... Sooner or later the gun is stuck back in the closet, your nightstand, or maybe a safe where it'll stay until you get another wild hair to shoot it again. I do the ame thing with golfing, mountain biking, and Hold 'Em Poker. Like any other hobby, you get bored with it.
We tried the banning of alcohol. That didn't work out too well. Here's one. Let's go on the premise that since cars kill people just as easily as guns, we'll give you a choice. To reduce the number of senseless deaths in this country, you have to ban on of these two deadly items. If you were given the choice to completely ban cars, or completely ban guns, which would you choose? We're doing this solely on the premise that cars kill more people than guns. So which do you cherish more? Your car or your guns?
That's a "dumb" question......Cars don't kill just as guns "don't" kill.....It's other extenuating circumstances and senseless people.....If you ban cars you couldn't exist....Meaning you wouldn't/couldn't get goods for society to survive or exist.....
2quills
Well-Known Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by crimzy http:///t/393837/ccw/20#post_3505300
I realize that this is off topic of whether schools should have an armed guard because there is no legitimate debate on that one. Security is provided in every realm of society where valuable assets are kept, and children are the most valuable that a society has to offer. If you disagree with protection in schools then you are simply hopeless and need to seek out hypnosis or maybe acupuncture to fix whatever mental deficiency you might have...
Heaven forbid you place armed security in a school. It makes much more sense to wait 5-10 minutes until the cops show up with their guns to try and protect you.
Originally Posted by crimzy http:///t/393837/ccw/20#post_3505300
I realize that this is off topic of whether schools should have an armed guard because there is no legitimate debate on that one. Security is provided in every realm of society where valuable assets are kept, and children are the most valuable that a society has to offer. If you disagree with protection in schools then you are simply hopeless and need to seek out hypnosis or maybe acupuncture to fix whatever mental deficiency you might have...
Heaven forbid you place armed security in a school. It makes much more sense to wait 5-10 minutes until the cops show up with their guns to try and protect you.
bionicarm
Active Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by acrylic51 http:///t/393837/ccw/20#post_3505316
That's a "dumb" question......Cars don't kill just as guns "don't" kill.....It's other extenuating circumstances and senseless people.....If you ban cars you couldn't exist....Meaning you wouldn't/couldn't get goods for society to survive or exist.....
That's the point I'm trying to make. Could you exist without your guns?
Originally Posted by acrylic51 http:///t/393837/ccw/20#post_3505316
That's a "dumb" question......Cars don't kill just as guns "don't" kill.....It's other extenuating circumstances and senseless people.....If you ban cars you couldn't exist....Meaning you wouldn't/couldn't get goods for society to survive or exist.....
That's the point I'm trying to make. Could you exist without your guns?
bionicarm
Active Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2Quills http:///t/393837/ccw/20#post_3505321
Heaven forbid you place armed security in a school. It makes much more sense to wait 5-10 minutes until the cops show up with their guns to try and protect you.
Are you going to pay for it? Slick Rick here in Texas has decimated our Public School budget to the point that districts are laying teachers off, and reducing needed services. But of course it's better to spend that money protecting the kids instead of teaching them just so someone can have the right to own a gun.
Originally Posted by 2Quills http:///t/393837/ccw/20#post_3505321
Heaven forbid you place armed security in a school. It makes much more sense to wait 5-10 minutes until the cops show up with their guns to try and protect you.
Are you going to pay for it? Slick Rick here in Texas has decimated our Public School budget to the point that districts are laying teachers off, and reducing needed services. But of course it's better to spend that money protecting the kids instead of teaching them just so someone can have the right to own a gun.