Kansas arms schools

 Pages 1 2 3 4 NEXT
 

Well, Emporia did anyway. And other schools are looking into it. They want to make it so the security guards that have already been hired can carry guns as long as they pass job requirements (they have to have 3 years of law enforcement work, and take safetly classes/have proper permits). The reason they decided to do this now is in the wake of Newtown. They want thier guard to be armed in the event that something does go down. It is also being talked about, both at Emporia and other districts, about also letting teachers carry thier own guns concealed.

So, what are your thoughts on this. Obviously, I approve. However, its not like it will be needed, IMO. Kansas hasnt had a mass KILLING, let alone mass shooting, in 150 years, and all the times it happened then were during THE Civil War and Bleeding Kansas (Kansas's own mini civil war 10 years before the main one, for those who dont know what that is.)

I have no problem with properly trained, licenced and regulated professionals carring firearms.

I would not want my children at a school where the teacher carried a firearm.

I also would not want to live in a place where I thought an armed guard was required to protect my children while at school.

This should have been in place all along. School shootings consists of a maniac shooting people like fish in a barrel until police arrive. The moment armed resistance arrives, the shooting ends. It only makes sense to have armed guards/teachers at the school.

I wonder when the first pupil will find a gun left by a forgetful or irresponsible guard and shoots themself.

I'm glad I don't live in quite that sort of a police state.

TechNoFear:
I have no problem with properly trained, licenced and regulated professionals carring firearms.

Even properly trained, licensed, and regulated professionals can have gun accidents in schools. http://www.listenonrepeat.com/watch/?v=pJvtWVSbEYA

Skeleon:
I wonder when the first pupil will find a gun left by a forgetful or irresponsible guard and shoots themself.

I'm glad I don't live in quite that sort of a police state.

I think you may have a grave misunderstanding of the term "police state."

OT: I'm for this. A few weeks ago a school resource officer stopped a gunman at a Tennessee school with no fatalities.

randomsix:
I think you may have a grave misunderstanding of the term "police state."

Nah, I just think you're fine with some forms of Authoritarianism that I'm not.
Constant supervision by armed guards of even very basic public places? That's awful. That's dystopian. It's sad if it's really necessary, but it's even sadder if it isn't but it's deemed necessary because of fearmongering towards "safety over liberty" and an absolute unwillingness to do anything meaningful beyond stupid actionism because of certain profit-oriented influences holding too much sway in politics.
So before you ask, yes, I'm also opposed to the increased surveillance of public places proposed in Germany after the recent, failed attempt to detonate an amateurish bomb at a train station.

Skeleon:

randomsix:
I think you may have a grave misunderstanding of the term "police state."

Nah, I just think you're fine with some forms of Authoritarianism that I'm not.
Constant supervision by armed guards of even very basic public places? That's awful. That's dystopian. It's sad if it's really necessary, but it's even sadder if it isn't but it's deemed necessary because of fearmongering towards "safety over liberty" and an absolute unwillingness to do anything meaningful beyond stupid actionism because of certain profit-oriented influences holding too much sway in politics.
So before you ask, yes, I'm also opposed to the increased surveillance of public places proposed in Germany after the recent, failed attempt to detonate an amateurish bomb at a train station.

I suppose I don't see the guard's involvement in the school itself as being as malignant as you do. They aren't there to supervise or monitor the students. Teachers and administrators do that enough already. They are there to deal with external threats. I see them as being more benign than lunch-aides in the vast majority of situations.
They would basically be a teacher with a gun who doesn't teach.

I'm actually curious about why you would consider an armed guard (who is not actually a member of a law enforcement agency) to be such an authoritarian influence.

TechNoFear:
I have no problem with properly trained, licenced and regulated professionals carring firearms.

I would not want my children at a school where the teacher carried a firearm.

I also would not want to live in a place where I thought an armed guard was required to protect my children while at school.

Yeah, I can handle trained security guards a bit better than guns being shoved into the hands of teachers. I believe many urban schools already have basically the same thing. I know teachers aren't incapable of wielding guns and could be just as effective as anyone else, but they have enough to deal with already. Keeping track of ~20 kids is bad enough without trying to keep track of a gun as well.

And as someone else already said, this is a bit confusing because Kansas hasn't had any problems with this yet. I guess prevention is a good thing, but still. At least it will keep people from shouting, "Lol give teachers gunz, that's the responsible thing to do!" I mean really, the only things I really want to change about gun laws is how background checks are done, and I still think that is a stupid idea. If you want a security force in schools, get a trained one. Don't pressure your staff into doing something they didn't sign up for.

TechNoFear:
I have no problem with properly trained, licenced and regulated professionals carring firearms.

I would not want my children at a school where the teacher carried a firearm.

I also would not want to live in a place where I thought an armed guard was required to protect my children while at school.

Teachers can be properly trained, licenced, and regulated professionals as well, even more so than your average security guard... Just when we think about the thugs from school that became cops and then you look at the security guards who were the rejects from that group, I would trust training the honors society over either of those groups any day considering their regard for details vs either of the other groups.

It makes no sense to me that people would rather put the guys who stole lawn mowers from garages, cut each other with razor blades at parties slinging blood at one another, and slept with 13 year old girls once they were " on the force" in the schools and then claim they are " better qualified and more responsible" to handle the job than the people who were honors students, went to school on scholarships they earned, and only take such a crummy job in the first place because they genuinely love working and helping the kids. In what world does that make sense?

Where I grew up, the guys who needed to be arrested became the cops, and the "responsible students" became the teachers. How the thugs suddenly become a "better choice" in the mind of anyone when it comes to something as serious as protecting the lives of the children in schools is beyond my understanding.

Lilani:

TechNoFear:
I have no problem with properly trained, licenced and regulated professionals carring firearms.

I would not want my children at a school where the teacher carried a firearm.

I also would not want to live in a place where I thought an armed guard was required to protect my children while at school.

Yeah, I can handle trained security guards a bit better than guns being shoved into the hands of teachers. I believe many urban schools already have basically the same thing. I know teachers aren't incapable of wielding guns and could be just as effective as anyone else, but they have enough to deal with already. Keeping track of ~20 kids is bad enough without trying to keep track of a gun as well.

And as someone else already said, this is a bit confusing because Kansas hasn't had any problems with this yet. I guess prevention is a good thing, but still. At least it will keep people from shouting, "Lol give teachers gunz, that's the responsible thing to do!" I mean really, the only things I really want to change about gun laws is how background checks are done, and I still think that is a stupid idea. If you want a security force in schools, get a trained one. Don't pressure your staff into doing something they didn't sign up for.

I keep hearing this "don't pressure Teachers" but then the teachers I actually have spoken to on the subject feel they are more qualified for the job than the people they propose to hire. I would say that we have confidence in our teachers enough to allow them to make the decision for themselves. Here in Texas schools for some years now they have already had firearm programs going in schools, and they have allowed the teachers to sign up for the program on a voluntary basis. They have already been doing this a while here, and We haven't heard any complaints from teachers on the program, how it was implemented or have had any problems with it.

The way they implemented the program here is the firearm is not actually on the teachers person. They modified the school, placing hidden firearms in secured strategic locations, even the identies of the teachers who volunteered for the program and were trained were not made available to the public. Basically they are " undercover", and run drills with the police department. The police department trained them, as well as works with them so they have prepared for a variety of terror situations. This way they have a trained team on site, rather than one guard to take out in the event the school is attacked, and the public is not made aware of who is and is not a part of the " team". they way they designed it was so no matter which section of the school became threatened there would always be at least one team member able to get into position quickly. I think they did it very well, considering the response times in Texas due to how spread out everything is here.

Lil devils x:
I keep hearing this "don't pressure Teachers" but then the teachers I actually have spoken to on the subject feel they are more qualified for the job than the people they propose to hire. I would say that we have confidence in our teachers enough to allow them to make the decision for themselves. Here in Texas schools for some years now they have already had firearm programs going in schools, and they have allowed the teachers to sign up for the program on a voluntary basis. They have already been doing this a while here, and We haven't heard any complaints from teachers on the program, how it was implemented or have had any problems with it.

The way they implemented the program here is the firearm is not actually on the teachers person. They modified the school, placing hidden firearms in secured strategic locations, even the identies of the teachers who volunteered for the program and were trained were not made available to the public. Basically they are " undercover", and run drills with the police department. The police department trained them, as well as works with them so they have prepared for a variety of terror situations. This way they have a trained team on site, rather than one guard to take out in the event the school is attacked, and the public is not made aware of who is and is not a part of the " team". they way they designed it was so no matter which section of the school became threatened there would always be at least one team member able to get into position quickly. I think they did it very well, considering the response times in Texas due to how spread out everything is here.

I still don't like this idea. Because while where you live there might be an abundance of teachers willing to take up the job, the story will be different for every school and location around the country. What happens when no teachers want to do it? Or what happens if they're all in one grade, meaning they'll all be concentrated in one part of the building? You can't just scramble grades and classrooms around like that, there has to be a specific order to things. Or what happens if half of them are sick one day, or on a field trip? On all those days your security force is thus halved.

And then there's the quagmire that is figuring out how do you store a firearm where you are 100% sure kids aren't going to get ahold of it while still making it easy to get to in an emergency. I imagine in most cases they'll only have seconds to react, so any sort of hidden stuff to get out of the way or something to unlock could mean their death. And then there's the situation where they're far from one. Having them in the hall wouldn't be a good idea because that's where the killer is going to be prowling, but having them in the classroom is possibly worse because the kids will be there and if the teacher in that classroom isn't the certified one, then that means the certified ones have to somehow get to that classroom. And putting them in the office is useless because that's the first place that always gets hit.

I understand your concerns about "thugs" and I really don't know how to prevent something like that from happening, but the way I see it if you're going to do it then do it right. If you're going to have an armed security force in a school, don't make it depend upon the perfect attendance of a handful of teachers.

Lilani:

Lil devils x:
I keep hearing this "don't pressure Teachers" but then the teachers I actually have spoken to on the subject feel they are more qualified for the job than the people they propose to hire. I would say that we have confidence in our teachers enough to allow them to make the decision for themselves. Here in Texas schools for some years now they have already had firearm programs going in schools, and they have allowed the teachers to sign up for the program on a voluntary basis. They have already been doing this a while here, and We haven't heard any complaints from teachers on the program, how it was implemented or have had any problems with it.

The way they implemented the program here is the firearm is not actually on the teachers person. They modified the school, placing hidden firearms in secured strategic locations, even the identies of the teachers who volunteered for the program and were trained were not made available to the public. Basically they are " undercover", and run drills with the police department. The police department trained them, as well as works with them so they have prepared for a variety of terror situations. This way they have a trained team on site, rather than one guard to take out in the event the school is attacked, and the public is not made aware of who is and is not a part of the " team". they way they designed it was so no matter which section of the school became threatened there would always be at least one team member able to get into position quickly. I think they did it very well, considering the response times in Texas due to how spread out everything is here.

I still don't like this idea. Because while where you live there might be an abundance of teachers willing to take up the job, the story will be different for every school and location around the country. What happens when no teachers want to do it? Or what happens if they're all in one grade, meaning they'll all be concentrated in one part of the building? You can't just scramble grades and classrooms around like that, there has to be a specific order to things. Or what happens if half of them are sick one day, or on a field trip? On all those days your security force is thus halved.

And then there's the quagmire that is figuring out how do you store a firearm where you are 100% sure kids aren't going to get ahold of it while still making it easy to get to in an emergency. I imagine in most cases they'll only have seconds to react, so any sort of hidden stuff to get out of the way or something to unlock could mean their death. And then there's the situation where they're far from one. Having them in the hall wouldn't be a good idea because that's where the killer is going to be prowling, but having them in the classroom is possibly worse because the kids will be there and if the teacher in that classroom isn't the certified one, then that means the certified ones have to somehow get to that classroom. And putting them in the office is useless because that's the first place that always gets hit.

I understand your concerns about "thugs" and I really don't know how to prevent something like that from happening, but the way I see it if you're going to do it then do it right. If you're going to have an armed security force in a school, don't make it depend upon the perfect attendance of a handful of teachers.

Here, they have teachers switch grades as needed due to numbers of students fluctuating per grade, and yes, we do have an abundance of teachers that came directly from the troops to teachers program and are already highly trained. Now this program is available nation wide,
http://www.proudtoserveagain.com/, so rather than hire an additional security guard, they could just hire one of these men and women who are already trained to do both, and would be more qualified for the job to begin with.

It isn't difficult to make something a "part of the building" without people knowing it is there, and a safe secured with alarm and code and from what I have heard from their reaction time is they can be in position as quickly as 12 seconds with their current system. I would say that is a vast improvement to the 45 min police time, and the police would still have to get into the building.

We had two "armed" security force in our school. One of them slept with my friend who lived upstairs from him when she was 13 and he smoked dope in the squad car with many students on campus... Armed police officers on campus isn;t a new thing, I already have seen how well that works.

Lil devils x:
Here, they have teachers switch grades as needed due to numbers of students fluctuating per grade, and yes, we do have an abundance of teachers that came directly from the troops to teachers program and are already highgly trained. Now this program is available nation wide,
http://www.proudtoserveagain.com/, so rather than hire an additional secuirty guard, they could just hire one of these men and women who are already trained to do both, and would be more qualified for the job to begin with.

It isn't difficult to make something a "part of the building" without people knowing it is there, and sedcured with alarm and code and from what I have heard from their reaction time is they can be in position as quickly as 12 seconds with their current system. I would say that is a vast improvement to the 45 min police time, and the police would still have to get into the building.

Actually, you can't just have teachers switch grades as needed. It can work to an extent in elementary school, but from middle school and up it just doesn't work out well at all. The teachers already have it hard enough to try and teach what they need to teach without getting switched around even more than usual. Coming up with curriculum isn't exactly easy, and nor is it something that can (or should) be done overnight. And again, I understand there are a lot of teachers straight from the troops, but you can't be sure how many will ever be in each school. They aren't exactly evenly distributed.

Also, there are still some logistical problems that can occur. There are times throughout the year when the teachers aren't in the school. Like, every spring the elementary school my mom works at has a field day where the entire school is out on their soccer field doing games. That would be a particularly vulnerable time, and if the guns are inside would make retaliation to any attack very difficult. I'm not saying the police could do it better, but I think a few armed guards that can be moved where they are needed would be a much more consistent kind of safety. And then if a teacher does have to go into action and they happen to teach kindergarten, who is going to watch the kids while the teacher is out dispatching the attacker? I realize the attacker would be the greater threat, but panicked children could make the whole situation get even more out of control. I mean you can't just lock them in the room unsupervised--after early childhood most classrooms have just the teacher, no aides to help out. And that kind of panic can just as easily seize a bunch of 9 or 10 year olds left on their own.

I feel like it's an overly-complicated solution that has too many holes in it. Security guards at teach of the entrances and maybe a few in the halls (depending on the size of the school) would get the job done just as well, and unlike guns in locked safes can be moved to guard wherever is needed, whether it's in the school or out on the playground.

Lilani:

Lil devils x:
Here, they have teachers switch grades as needed due to numbers of students fluctuating per grade, and yes, we do have an abundance of teachers that came directly from the troops to teachers program and are already highgly trained. Now this program is available nation wide,
http://www.proudtoserveagain.com/, so rather than hire an additional secuirty guard, they could just hire one of these men and women who are already trained to do both, and would be more qualified for the job to begin with.

It isn't difficult to make something a "part of the building" without people knowing it is there, and sedcured with alarm and code and from what I have heard from their reaction time is they can be in position as quickly as 12 seconds with their current system. I would say that is a vast improvement to the 45 min police time, and the police would still have to get into the building.

Actually, you can't just have teachers switch grades as needed. It can work to an extent in elementary school, but from middle school and up it just doesn't work out well at all. The teachers already have it hard enough to try and teach what they need to teach without getting switched around even more than usual. Coming up with curriculum isn't exactly easy, and nor is it something that can (or should) be done overnight. And again, I understand there are a lot of teachers straight from the troops, but you can't be sure how many will ever be in each school. They aren't exactly evenly distributed.

Also, there are still some logistical problems that can occur. There are times throughout the year when the teachers aren't in the school. Like, every spring the elementary school my mom works at has a field day where the entire school is out on their soccer field doing games. That would be a particularly vulnerable time, and if the guns are inside would make retaliation to any attack very difficult. I'm not saying the police could do it better, but I think a few armed guards that can be moved where they are needed would be a much more consistent kind of safety. And then if a teacher does have to go into action and they happen to teach kindergarten, who is going to watch the kids while the teacher is out dispatching the attacker? I realize the attacker would be the greater threat, but panicked children could make the whole situation get even more out of control. I mean you can't just lock them in the room unsupervised--after early childhood most classrooms have just the teacher, no aides to help out. And that kind of panic can just as easily seize a bunch of 9 or 10 year olds left on their own.

I feel like it's an overly-complicated solution that has too many holes in it. Security guards at teach of the entrances and maybe a few in the halls (depending on the size of the school) would get the job done just as well, and unlike guns in locked safes can be moved to guard wherever is needed, whether it's in the school or out on the playground.

In elementary school is the only area they need to switch grades as needed, in middleschool and highschool the classes are not separated by grades, as you have many students from different grades in the same classes together. I was always in classes with the majority of students were in older grades, so that shouldn't be an issue. In 7th grade I only had one class that had only 7th grade in it, from there up none of the classes were restricted by grade.

Think about the costs of what you are proposing, they do not even give the teachers adequate raises, yet they are supposed to somehow come up with the funding to add an entire team to the staff that isn't actually involved in education? I would rather then spend that money on the currently lacking education fund, and allow for teachers and faculty to volunteer if they so choose. Now here, they have also given the options for administration to be armed as well, and they actually have the conceal to carry as well. I see them as more responsible and able to get the job done and have confidence in them to handle it. We have coaches, administration, and teachers that can do this, are more qualified to do this, have proven themselves more responsible, and are asking to, I say we should trust them enough to do it. They are only concerned about protecting the children they have already dedicated their lives to, I agree they should be allowed to. The teachers may not have their firearms on them, but the administration does, there are more people on staff already at the schools that are not always involved with a classroom full of students.

Just as with any drill, or rotation at the school, teachers know when and how to handle situations accordingly. Here they have doors between the classrooms as well as in the hall. They use them currently when combining classrooms for movies and group activites. It would not be difficult for the teacher in the classroom next door to know to combine and take charge of both classes in an emergency to cover that teachers classroom should they be needed elsewhere. A bracelet that goes off just like they hand out when you are waiting for you to be seated while dining out could be used very well in this situation as well. When it goes off, the teacher goes into position, everyone knows what their role is and they do it, it isn't hard.

Who guards the guards? The rate America is going there will probably be suggestions for lightly-armed drones in the next decade or so to patrol near all schools, controlled by the military or some other authority. It would be cheaper and less invasive, but about the same level of dystopian.

There's just something fundamentally wrong with a country if it feels the need to have guns in a place of learning.

randomsix:
I'm actually curious about why you would consider an armed guard (who is not actually a member of a law enforcement agency) to be such an authoritarian influence.

I dislike authority controlling and observing everything we do. It doesn't matter that it's not an actual cop, it's still an authority figure checking everything people do; and these particular guards are just one of many indicators of a greater problem with safety-over-liberty. Plus, you're naive if you don't think they'll enforce other things while they're at it... especially in a place like Kansas.

I generally prefer authority to stay out of our ways and leave our privacy intact. If we do nothing to justify increased observation and unless there's a specific cause for it (and a court order), there's no reason to have anybody approach and check you.

I'll make an exception for things like checking cars because lots of other people could be at risk if things aren't in order while you're driving (and other similar justifiable reasons), but other than that they should stay out of our business. And considering this is nothing more than a bandaid to the actual issues with school shootings, no, this is not such a justifiable reason. It puts everybody under general suspicion all the time. It's fucked up. I could never feel comfortable living in a place where there was the sort of oppressive authoritarian oversight these people are proposing (and now on a small scale installing).

Let's say it like this: If there was a cop twirling a nightstick on every corner, watching every move you and the other people around you do, would you feel safe or oppressed? No, this isn't as bad as that. But it's a symptom of a bigger issue of using fear to increase authoritarianism. And the funny thing is? These are approaches that people like La Pierre are in favour of, while they are opposed to gun control. It's so backwards to me. Just do proper gun control and get the fuck out of my and everybody else's business[1].

[1] ...is what I would say if I lived in the USA.

Esotera:
Who guards the guards? The rate America is going there will probably be suggestions for lightly-armed drones in the next decade or so to patrol near all schools, controlled by the military or some other authority. It would be cheaper and less invasive, but about the same level of dystopian.

There's just something fundamentally wrong with a country if it feels the need to have guns in a place of learning.

They have had guns in places of learning for a very very long time, that is old news, the only new thing here is the number of shootings in schools the without armed staff or guards. When I was in school the guys with the guns were smoking dope with the kids, it isn't like anyone was afraid of them.

Skeleon:

randomsix:
I'm actually curious about why you would consider an armed guard (who is not actually a member of a law enforcement agency) to be such an authoritarian influence.

I dislike authority controlling and observing everything we do. It doesn't matter that it's not an actual cop, it's still an authority figure checking everything people do; and these particular guards are just one of many indicators of a greater problem with safety-over-liberty. Plus, you're naive if you don't think they'll enforce other things while they're at it... especially in a place like Kansas.

I generally prefer authority to stay out of our ways and leave our privacy intact. If we do nothing to justify increased observation and unless there's a specific cause for it (and a court order), there's no reason to have anybody approach and check you.

I'll make an exception for things like checking cars because lots of other people could be at risk if things aren't in order while you're driving (and other similar justifiable reasons), but other than that they should stay out of our business. And considering this is nothing more than a bandaid to the actual issues with school shootings, no, this is not such a justifiable reason. It puts everybody under general suspicion all the time. It's fucked up. I could never feel comfortable living in a place where there was the sort of oppressive authoritarian oversight these people are proposing (and now on a small scale installing).

Let's say it like this: If there was a cop twirling a nightstick on every corner, watching every move you and the other people around you do, would you feel safe or oppressed? No, this isn't as bad as that. But it's a symptom of a bigger issue of using fear to increase authoritarianism. And the funny thing is? These are approaches that people like La Pierre are in favour of, while they are opposed to gun control. It's so backwards to me. Just do proper gun control and get the fuck out of my and everybody else's business[1].

I can imagine you would say that looking in from the outside, though I also would imagine you would realize that was never going to happen if you lived in "da grove" for a short time. They bury them on public property and have them stashed everywhere, I do not see how you could possibly do "gun control" without completely throwing out all rights and using the military against civilians. They would have to raid everywhere, then not allow anyone to go back to the places they just raided because they stash crap in there within 30 min after the cops leave.
They thought nothing of digging them up in broad daylight on the school playground by the teeter totter with us swinging.

[1] ...is what I would say if I lived in the USA.

Lil devils x:
I can imagine you would say that looking in from the outside, though I also would imagine you would realize that was never going to happen if you lived in "da grove" for a short time. They bury them on public property and have them stashed everywhere, I do not see how you could possibly do "gun control" without completely throwing out all rights and using the military against civilians. They would have to raid everywhere, then not allow anyone to go backl to the places they just raided because they stash crap in there within 30 min after the cops leave.

I don't think "gun control", not even "proper gun control", means "taking all the guns".

Plus, this may be an issue of exorcising the Devil with Beelzebub. Dunno if that expression is used elsewhere, but the idea is that you're trying to fix something, but are actually making things equally bad or even worse. That's what this is to me. Increasing Authoritarianism out of fear is not a good idea. Look what beautiful fruits the Patriot Act and its many misbegotten spawn brought you. But then again, I'm sure somebody will say that gun control is Authoritarianism, maybe even worse than this measure of actually putting literal authority in your schools? Again, that would be very backwards to me.

Skeleon:

Lil devils x:
I can imagine you would say that looking in from the outside, though I also would imagine you would realize that was never going to happen if you lived in "da grove" for a short time. They bury them on public property and have them stashed everywhere, I do not see how you could possibly do "gun control" without completely throwing out all rights and using the military against civilians. They would have to raid everywhere, then not allow anyone to go backl to the places they just raided because they stash crap in there within 30 min after the cops leave.

I don't think "gun control", not even "proper gun control", means "taking all the guns".
Plus, this may be an issue of excorcising the Devil with Beelzebub. Dunno if that expression is used elsewhere, but the idea is that you're trying to fix something, but are actually making things equally bad or even worse. That's what this is to me.

What is proper gun control if not taking them from the gangs that are shooting each other in the streets and using them to rob people? That is what you would have to do to get their guns, so I am not sure how that would work without doing so. My uncle, for example, would not need an assault rifle if the gangs were not constantly shooting and robbing everyone. As long as there is a "need" there will be people keeping them.

I honestly agree with you on the patriot act, and that there are serious issues to be resolved here. I only see having the schools be allowed to defend themselves as a " buy some time" to actually solve the problem. The problem is an issue of a society lacking respect for one another and all things, and can only be resolved by starting from the ground up teaching proper respect. I don't see that happening anytime soon in a society that celebrates degrading, insulting, greediness, selfishness, bullying, and self promotion as this one does.

Lil devils x:
What is proper gun control if not taking them from the gangs that are shooting each other in the streets and using them to rob people? That is what you would have to do to get their guns, so I am not sure how that would work without doing so.

Oh come on, stop it with that intentionally defeatist all-or-nothing attitude. I have no interest in retreading the exact same tired old arguments for and against gun control and the various details of making access more difficult or regulating it better that we've talked about on this forum in the last two months especially and even the years before. There are plenty of things worth doing that could help without being a 100% solution. Hell, nobody ever claims to have a 100% solution for these issues. My point here is that this is the wrong way to go about it. This is authoritarianism and people shouldn't cheer for increased surveillance and armed overseers in their daily lives. But I guess some people like that sort of big government.

EDIT:

Lil devils x:
Well the idea that we can take the assault weapons, for example, from guys like my uncle, who has had his own son shot by gangs in his own driveway yet the guys who shot him still have theirs is not " proper gun control" either. In what world would that be okay as well?

I guess you don't want to respond to my points. Fine, then I won't respond to yours, either. I told you that I don't have an interest in rehashing the same dead-end discussions on this. It's not like an anecdote like that means anything in the greater scheme of things, especially when gun control would also limit criminals' access (and the policies that you are talking about wouldn't even affect a large number of common weapons used for home defense). But, sure, let's use the failings of the enforcement of law and order as a shield to deflect any criticisms regarding gun regulations and as argumentation for increased oversight some more.

I'm so tired of this merry-go-round. I'd rather get on the Creationism versus Evolution ride again if we can't even talk about other, very different aspects of this particular debate without ending up in the exact same pointless spot again. At least there it's kind of funny. Heh. Hovind's ice shield.

Skeleon:

Lil devils x:
What is proper gun control if not taking them from the gangs that are shooting each other in the streets and using them to rob people? That is what you would have to do to get their guns, so I am not sure how that would work without doing so.

Oh come on, stop it with that intentionally defeatist all-or-nothing attitude. I have no interest in retreading the exact same tired old arguments for and against gun control and the various details of making access more difficult or regulating it better that we've talked about on this forum in the last two months especially and even the years before. There are plenty of things worth doing that could help without being a 100% solution. Hell, nobody ever claims to have a 100% solution for these issues. My point here is that this is the wrong way to go about it. This is authoritarianism and people shouldn't cheer for increased surveillance and armed overseers in your daily lives. But I guess some people like that sort of big government.

Well the idea that we can take the assault weapons, for example, from guys like my uncle, who has had his own son shot by gangs in his own driveway yet the guys who shot him still have theirs is not " proper gun control" either. In what world would that be okay as well?

I also added this to my post:
"I honestly agree with you on the patriot act, and that there are serious issues to be resolved here. I only see having the schools be allowed to defend themselves as a " buy some time" to actually solve the problem. The problem is an issue of a society lacking respect for one another and all things, and can only be resolved by starting from the ground up teaching proper respect. I don't see that happening anytime soon in a society that celebrates degrading, insulting, greediness, selfishness, bullying, and self promotion as this one does."

Skeleon:

Lil devils x:
What is proper gun control if not taking them from the gangs that are shooting each other in the streets and using them to rob people? That is what you would have to do to get their guns, so I am not sure how that would work without doing so.

Oh come on, stop it with that intentionally defeatist all-or-nothing attitude. I have no interest in retreading the exact same tired old arguments for and against gun control and the various details of making access more difficult or regulating it better that we've talked about on this forum in the last two months especially and even the years before. There are plenty of things worth doing that could help without being a 100% solution. Hell, nobody ever claims to have a 100% solution for these issues. My point here is that this is the wrong way to go about it. This is authoritarianism and people shouldn't cheer for increased surveillance and armed overseers in their daily lives. But I guess some people like that sort of big government.

EDIT:

Lil devils x:
Well the idea that we can take the assault weapons, for example, from guys like my uncle, who has had his own son shot by gangs in his own driveway yet the guys who shot him still have theirs is not " proper gun control" either. In what world would that be okay as well?

I guess you don't want to respond to my points. Fine, then I won't respond to yours, either. I told you that I don't have an interest in rehashing the same dead-end discussions on this. It's not like an anecdote like that means anything in the greater scheme of things, especially when gun control would also limit criminals' access (and the policies that you are talking about wouldn't even affect a large number of common weapons used for home defense). But, sure, let's use the failings of the enforcement of law and order as a shield to deflect any criticisms regarding gun regulations some more.

I apologize for any misunderstanding, I thought I did address your points in regards to the patriot act in the previous post, and I did not see any actual " solutions" to respond to. You say no solutions will be 100%, however, what are the propsed solutions for gun control? If it is limiting weapons only from those law abiding citizens, I oppose that, as that is not a viable solution given the problems we currently deal with already. If it is limiting the manufacture of weapons, I oppose that as that only gives more money to the black market. Until you actually reduce the threats, you cannot limit the means which people have to defend themselves. When police officers are not even required to help you, you cannot then remove ones only way to defend themselves. That doesn't solve anything, only causes more problems. Remove the demand and you better solve the problem. I would much rather people weren't being forced to defend themselves and have proper justice in place rather than the current situation any day.

I'm willing to bet that if this goes widespread, there will be a situation where some kids are running through the corridor, they run into a guard and push him, he falls or bumps against a wall or something, the gun shoots by accident and some kid is dead.

HardkorSB:
I'm willing to bet that if this goes widespread, there will be a situation where some kids are running through the corridor, they run into a guard and push him, he falls or bumps against a wall or something, the gun shoots by accident and some kid is dead.

If properly secured, and maintained, that cannot happen. That is what a "safety" is for.

Skeleon:

Lil devils x:
I can imagine you would say that looking in from the outside, though I also would imagine you would realize that was never going to happen if you lived in "da grove" for a short time. They bury them on public property and have them stashed everywhere, I do not see how you could possibly do "gun control" without completely throwing out all rights and using the military against civilians. They would have to raid everywhere, then not allow anyone to go backl to the places they just raided because they stash crap in there within 30 min after the cops leave.

I don't think "gun control", not even "proper gun control", means "taking all the guns".

Plus, this may be an issue of exorcising the Devil with Beelzebub. Dunno if that expression is used elsewhere, but the idea is that you're trying to fix something, but are actually making things equally bad or even worse. That's what this is to me. Increasing Authoritarianism out of fear is not a good idea. Look what beautiful fruits the Patriot Act and its many misbegotten spawn brought you. But then again, I'm sure somebody will say that gun control is Authoritarianism, maybe even worse than this measure of actually putting literal authority in your schools? Again, that would be very backwards to me.

Isn't an usual argument for guns that it provides an individual with a way to defend himself against attackers, which doesn't require an inefficient government-funded force of some kind (Police, for instance) to do it for you?
It would seem that having armed guards at a school to defend the students from mad-men with guns is Authoritarian, but so is banning guns and taking away peoples freedom to defend themselves?
Now I know, I know, a total gun-ban in the US isn't feasible, but at this rate, I can't but imagine how it will look in a few decades, when we arm a few special teachers to protect us from the possible threat of armed security-guards going on a rampage (and then we arm a few students to protect us from the possible teachers going berserk and teaming up with the secutiy-guards).

Lil devils x:

HardkorSB:
I'm willing to bet that if this goes widespread, there will be a situation where some kids are running through the corridor, they run into a guard and push him, he falls or bumps against a wall or something, the gun shoots by accident and some kid is dead.

If properly secured, that cannot happen. That is what a "safety" is for.

Yes, and everything is always 'properly secured'. That's why there is never, ever a single work-accident in the entire world.
In fact, there's never a single car-accident in the entire world, for everyone drives safe and properly, never drunk, always keeping their eyes on the road, and is never distracted.

Realitycrash:

Skeleon:

Lil devils x:
I can imagine you would say that looking in from the outside, though I also would imagine you would realize that was never going to happen if you lived in "da grove" for a short time. They bury them on public property and have them stashed everywhere, I do not see how you could possibly do "gun control" without completely throwing out all rights and using the military against civilians. They would have to raid everywhere, then not allow anyone to go backl to the places they just raided because they stash crap in there within 30 min after the cops leave.

I don't think "gun control", not even "proper gun control", means "taking all the guns".

Plus, this may be an issue of exorcising the Devil with Beelzebub. Dunno if that expression is used elsewhere, but the idea is that you're trying to fix something, but are actually making things equally bad or even worse. That's what this is to me. Increasing Authoritarianism out of fear is not a good idea. Look what beautiful fruits the Patriot Act and its many misbegotten spawn brought you. But then again, I'm sure somebody will say that gun control is Authoritarianism, maybe even worse than this measure of actually putting literal authority in your schools? Again, that would be very backwards to me.

Isn't an usual argument for guns that it provides an individual with a way to defend himself against attackers, which doesn't require an inefficient government-funded force of some kind (Police, for instance) to do it for you?
It would seem that having armed guards at a school to defend the students from mad-men with guns is Authoritarian, but so is banning guns and taking away peoples freedom to defend themselves?
Now I know, I know, a total gun-ban in the US isn't feasible, but at this rate, I can't but imagine how it will look in a few decades, when we arm a few special teachers to protect us from the possible threat of armed security-guards going on a rampage (and then we arm a few students to protect us from the possible teachers going berserk and teaming up with the secutiy-guards).

That is awfully silly, I wouldn't think they would ever be arming students, other than on universities, where the students are adults, military and officers themselves.

Realitycrash:

Lil devils x:

HardkorSB:
I'm willing to bet that if this goes widespread, there will be a situation where some kids are running through the corridor, they run into a guard and push him, he falls or bumps against a wall or something, the gun shoots by accident and some kid is dead.

If properly secured, that cannot happen. That is what a "safety" is for.

Yes, and everything is always 'properly secured'. That's why there is never, ever a single work-accident in the entire world.
In fact, there's never a single car-accident in the entire world, for everyone drives safe and properly, never drunk, always keeping their eyes on the road, and is never distracted.

I have dropped my glock many times with safety on ( on purpose) also had it run over burried, frozen.. it is not possible for it to fire with safety on. So your saying we should take the guns from officers, military and body guards because sometimes people drink and drive?

Lil devils x:

Realitycrash:

Skeleon:

I don't think "gun control", not even "proper gun control", means "taking all the guns".

Plus, this may be an issue of exorcising the Devil with Beelzebub. Dunno if that expression is used elsewhere, but the idea is that you're trying to fix something, but are actually making things equally bad or even worse. That's what this is to me. Increasing Authoritarianism out of fear is not a good idea. Look what beautiful fruits the Patriot Act and its many misbegotten spawn brought you. But then again, I'm sure somebody will say that gun control is Authoritarianism, maybe even worse than this measure of actually putting literal authority in your schools? Again, that would be very backwards to me.

Isn't an usual argument for guns that it provides an individual with a way to defend himself against attackers, which doesn't require an inefficient government-funded force of some kind (Police, for instance) to do it for you?
It would seem that having armed guards at a school to defend the students from mad-men with guns is Authoritarian, but so is banning guns and taking away peoples freedom to defend themselves?
Now I know, I know, a total gun-ban in the US isn't feasible, but at this rate, I can't but imagine how it will look in a few decades, when we arm a few special teachers to protect us from the possible threat of armed security-guards going on a rampage (and then we arm a few students to protect us from the possible teachers going berserk and teaming up with the secutiy-guards).

That is awfully silly, I wouldn't think they would ever be arming students, other than on universities, where the students are adults, military and officers themselves.

I know it's silly. It's because it's an Reductio Ad Absurdum. The point is that arms-escalating seems absurd from a point-of-view of the rest of the world.

Lil devils x:

HardkorSB:
I'm willing to bet that if this goes widespread, there will be a situation where some kids are running through the corridor, they run into a guard and push him, he falls or bumps against a wall or something, the gun shoots by accident and some kid is dead.

If properly secured, and maintained, that cannot happen. That is what a "safety" is for.

And again, I'll use that tired old card...chaos on the roads is always the fault of "those other morons". Not me, no ma'am, I'm a responsible driver and infallible in my skills and judgement, naturally.

Same with firearm ownership, pretty much.

Lil devils x:
*snip*

Square this:

"But, sure, let's use the failings of the enforcement of law and order as a shield to deflect any criticisms regarding gun regulations some more."

With this:

"When police officers are not even required to help you, you cannot then remove ones only way to defend themselves."

Maybe you should get your system fixed if it's as fucked up as people keep claiming on here and then do proper gun control. I'm not beyond doing things in a reasonable order, if that's the issue.
But I don't really think it can be that bad, lest you live in a Somalia-like hellhole part of the USA. Certainly not on a large scale, although I'll grant you isolated incidents, sure.
Actually, I think this is about preferring to have your freedoms and privacy eroded, rather than losing those particular toys and settling for more basic weaponry for self-defense.
I've mentioned the massive cultural divide I often see around here in another thread. I just can't understand why people are so uninterested in avoiding authoritarianism as long as it means holding on to some beefed-up guns. That's not freedom to me, nor is it necessarily safety.

I'm done for now, until somebody wants to talk about the issue of authoritarianism some more.

EDIT:

Realitycrash:
Now I know, I know, a total gun-ban in the US isn't feasible, but at this rate, I can't but imagine how it will look in a few decades, when we arm a few special teachers to protect us from the possible threat of armed security-guards going on a rampage (and then we arm a few students to protect us from the possible teachers going berserk and teaming up with the secutiy-guards).

Well, yeah. Probably not quite like that, but as I mentioned earlier in this thread, I think this is just one symptom of a greater issue. The USA have become increasingly authoritarian over the last decade in particular. And I don't think it'll stop anytime soon. Especially if self-proclaimed freedom-lovers cheer the increase of authoritarianism onwards. *shrug*

Lil devils x:

Realitycrash:

Lil devils x:

If properly secured, that cannot happen. That is what a "safety" is for.

Yes, and everything is always 'properly secured'. That's why there is never, ever a single work-accident in the entire world.
In fact, there's never a single car-accident in the entire world, for everyone drives safe and properly, never drunk, always keeping their eyes on the road, and is never distracted.

I have dropped my glock many times with safety on ( on purpose) also had it run over burried, frozen.. it is not possible for it to fire with safety on. So your saying we should take the guns from officers, military and body guards because sometimes people drink and drive?

No, I'm saying 'accidents happen' and 'people are morons'. I'm saying that claiming 'Accidents can't happen if people behave correctly' isn't a proper answer to those that say 'I fear for the day when some guard accidentally kills a student with his gun'. Gun accidents happen all the time, so your answer isn't sufficient. It's nonsensical, for of course accidents wouldn't happen if shit was done right, but then there wouldn't be an accident in the first caswe!

Realitycrash:

Lil devils x:

Realitycrash:

Isn't an usual argument for guns that it provides an individual with a way to defend himself against attackers, which doesn't require an inefficient government-funded force of some kind (Police, for instance) to do it for you?
It would seem that having armed guards at a school to defend the students from mad-men with guns is Authoritarian, but so is banning guns and taking away peoples freedom to defend themselves?
Now I know, I know, a total gun-ban in the US isn't feasible, but at this rate, I can't but imagine how it will look in a few decades, when we arm a few special teachers to protect us from the possible threat of armed security-guards going on a rampage (and then we arm a few students to protect us from the possible teachers going berserk and teaming up with the secutiy-guards).

That is awfully silly, I wouldn't think they would ever be arming students, other than on universities, where the students are adults, military and officers themselves.

I know it's silly. It's because it's an Reductio Ad Absurdum. The point is that arms-escalating seems absurd from a point-of-view of the rest of the world.

Escalation when you are not under direct threat is absurd, increasing defence after you have already been attacked repeatedly is common sense.

 Pages 1 2 3 4 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Registered for a free account here