Kansas arms schools

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4
 

Da Orky Man:
I am getting very confused with how the US works now. How does a country with quite possibly one of the most anti-authoritarian population of Western civilization end up with this?

Abstract:
We like having firearms in order to entertain the illusion that we could have the power to overthrow the government if, for whatever reason, that became desirable. (All the time, according to some.)
Negative:
We also like not to die to firearm violence, and for our children not to die to firearm violence. (Unless they deserve it.)
Concrete:
We threaten would-be shooters with getting shot back in order to hopefully eliminate threats, or at least to look like we're doing something about the perceived problem. (Deterrence seems unlikely in mass shooting cases-- how many people get away with that sort of thing?)

So there you have it: the Hegelian dialectic of certain reactions to firearm violence in the United States.

BOOM headshot65:

Gilhelmi:

All the while, singing praises to the Lord for giving us Kansas.

This sentence goes well with this song:

If you dont mind me asking, were abouts are you at here?

I love that song.

North-Western Kansas. Right on the Nebraska/Kansas boarder.

You can see for miles. The Sunsets and Sunrises are among the most beautiful I have seen (though I admit to being biased). I do love it here.

Gilhelmi:

North-Western Kansas. Right on the Nebraska/Kansas boarder.

That sounds like the home/backstory of every fanfiction ever written by my girlfriend, ever.

I am from around the Manhattan Area (in the North-east. Girlfriend is from around here too). Born there. Raised there. Want to stay as close as possible. However, if I get into politics like I hope, I may have to move closer to Topeka. Though not in it, I hate big cities. Maybe go to Maple Hill.

Karma168:

Where's the parents choice?

Speaking just for here, they handed it democratically according to the papers. The Emporia school board put it up to discussion, heard both sides of the argument, then voted on it. It was overwelmingly in favor of allowing the guards to arm up, with the condition that they have to have law enforcement experiance and take safetly classes involving firearms. There was VERY little objection, and all of the people who did object said they will accept it. That result doesnt suprise me really, considering how gun friendly we are here.[1]

Smagmuck_:

So you're justifying offensive behavior because has different opinions than your own?

Because if you are, you're just shooting yourself in the foot when it comes to swaying other's outlook.

Wait, you mean to tell me that insulting people wont make them change thier minds?!

Well, who'da thunk that?

[1] One of the only states with fully legalized machine gun ownership, Baby!!

BOOM headshot65:
Speaking just for here, they handed it democratically according to the papers. The Emporia school board put it up to discussion, heard both sides of the argument, then voted on it. It was overwelmingly in favor of allowing the guards to arm up, with the condition that they have to have law enforcement experiance and take safetly classes involving firearms. There was VERY little objection, and all of the people who did object said they will accept it. That result doesnt suprise me really, considering how gun friendly we are here.

So it enjoyed actual popular support and not just support from NRA leadership despite poll numbers? Fair enough. I do have a question though. If anything goes wrong (here's to hoping it doesn't) and innocent people get hurt because of accidents, do you have a plan in place for addressing the consequences? Are you prepared to re-evaluate the situation and entertain new ideas or solutions?

BOOM headshot65:
Speaking just for here, they handed it democratically according to the papers. The Emporia school board put it up to discussion, heard both sides of the argument, then voted on it. It was overwelmingly in favor of allowing the guards to arm up, with the condition that they have to have law enforcement experiance and take safetly classes involving firearms. There was VERY little objection, and all of the people who did object said they will accept it. That result doesnt suprise me really, considering how gun friendly we are here.

They're presented with a non-choice though, as all actual solutions are outside of the scope of the school. A simple yes/no to a measure that's unlikely to work effectively, but is the best a school as an individual organisation can do, doesn't say much about people's opinions on gun violence. It could well be that 99% of those who voted in favour, are in fact supporting a gun ban of some kind.

Da Orky Man:
I am getting very confused with how the US works now. How does a country with quite possibly one of the most anti-authoritarian population of Western civilization end up with this?

Where your rights ends, my feelings begins. Muh feelings is screwing America over fast.

Blablahb:
inconvenient truth of the gun lobby.

Until you can prove that with hard evidence, it isn't a truth, it's just a claim.

BoneDaddy_SK:

So it enjoyed actual popular support and not just support from NRA leadership despite poll numbers? Fair enough.

You have to remember that In Kansas, or to a larger extent the Midwest[1] and the South, popular support and the NRA's policies are one in the same. If you were to ask people around here of their opinion of the NRA, 7 out of 10 will likely say something along the lines of "Oh yeah. The NRA. Love those guys, they represent me well." But if you ask them about their opinion on, I dont know, the Brady Campain, the response from the same 7 out of 10 would be "F*** THOSE GUYS!! They suck, and have no place being here, and we will drive them into the ground!!" The state of Kansas has EXTREMELY lax gun laws (but a below average homicide rate and lower crime rate in general), and is one of the few states to fully legalize ownership of automatic weapons...and tanks...and rockets....actually, the only requirement is the round has to be less than 40mm, it has to be unguided, and if it explodes, you have to have 20 acres of land and and permission from the correct fire cheif. Oh, and you cant drive tanks on public roads if it has tracks. (Wheels are Ok)

I do have a question though. If anything goes wrong (here's to hoping it doesn't) and innocent people get hurt because of accidents, do you have a plan in place for addressing the consequences? Are you prepared to re-evaluate the situation and entertain new ideas or solutions?

I highly dought that they would get rid of the carry capacity of these guards. Many are in favor of it, and with each mass shooting in other states, people keep screaming to make it easier to get more guns., so I dought they will disarm them.

@Blablabh
*game show buzzer* Oh, I am sorry sir, but the correct answer is actually 5%. Thanks for playing 'Guess That Percentage!'

99% of Kansas want a gun ban? Really? I guess that is why we have continued to vote in polititians to lax the gun laws (with those looking to tighten them not even getting close to getting in), and voted to make it legal to own basically anything short of heavy arillery and guided weapons (you can even own TANKS if you can find one), and why people have continually voted against even simple registration (see link above), and finally, have given our state legislation the peoples blessing regarding a law just recently made and passed saying that "Any law that Violates the 2nd Amendment shall be rendered null and void under Kansas Law."

[1] With the exceptions of Illinios, Michigan, and Wisconson

Who watches the watchmen? Or in this example what happens when one of these armed guards goes off the deep end, and starts shooting kids up with his allowed firearm? For me the logic just seems absurd, people are getting shot up in schools, so I know we'll add more guns to the situation! God there's not much to be proud of about England, but the one thing I can say that we do well is not having to worry about our kids getting shot up at school.

As for giving teacher's guns, I can already see certain sick individuals using them to make child molestation easier (and that's one thing we definitely don't want), can you imagine being a kid in that situation? Your teacher pulls a gun on you and threatens to shoot you if you don't do as they say? Or any other way a teacher having a gun could be abused or misused?

BOOM headshot65:
You have to remember that In Kansas, or to a larger extent the Midwest and the South, popular support and the NRA's policies are one in the same.

That's not necessarily true. The overwhelming majority of the NRA's membership now support universal background checks, but David Keene and Wayne LaPierre are on FOX News saying that universal background checks will lead to da gub'mint stealin' yer guns. The rest of your paragraph was completely tangential and I wasn't asking so I have no idea why you brought it up.

I highly dought that they would get rid of the carry capacity of these guards. Many are in favor of it, and with each mass shooting in other states, people keep screaming to make it easier to get more guns., so I dought they will disarm them.

So no then. Should anything go wrong, you have no plan. Oh dear...

2012 Wont Happen:

The only alternative is law abiding citizens being armed, which is a very achievable solution.

But who is a "law abiding citizen" if not simply "someone who has not committed a crime yet"?

Blablahb:
What makes you think guards will stop school shootings in the first place? It's highly unlikely. The only thing they'll have time to respond to is very long organised shootings. The average gun owner just pulls out a gun in a crowd, starts blasting and not two minutes later some kids are dead, no way to prevent it once he has purchased that firearm... And the organised shooters will just kill the guard first, simple.

Case in point: The second Virginia Tech shooting. They had armed guards there too. The shooter just walked up to the guard and second amended him. Fortunately apparently that threw him off somehow and he didn't embark on a shooting spree after that.

You continue to bring up VT but have you refuted the case in Atlanta, I believe it was, where an armed officer neutralized that situation? And what about Columbine? There was an armed officer putting fire on one of the shooters in the early moments which, if successful, would have saved many lives that day. As I understood he didn't have his glasses on.

There was just a recent case in Detroit where a staff member was walking female students through a parking lot and had a gun pulled on him. He responded with his weapon and saved all of their lives.

Blablahb:
It's lovely satire to expose what the gun lobby is doing by clinging to said amendment. One of their main points is trying to argue there's a difference between legal and illegal weapons, and legal and illegal use of weapons, while there isn't. It's legal hairsplitting. Support people having guns, you also support the inevitable consequence of them being used in shootings, it's really not any more complicated than that.

Won't change untill either people change their point of view on that, or no guns ever get used for shootings anymore.

How is any of this even remotely logical? The existence of weapons is not criminal nor do they incriminate anyone in possession for other people who use them in criminal acts. Further, your conclusion that people need to be converted to this way of thinking or that an impossibility must occur is, itself, an impossible argument to have.

Vegosiux:

2012 Wont Happen:

The only alternative is law abiding citizens being armed, which is a very achievable solution.

But who is a "law abiding citizen" if not simply "someone who has not committed a crime yet"?

One citizen can become a criminal in an instant. A group of people in an area are not likely to become murderers in an instant. If that crowd is armed, they can act against a person who has made that shift.

The people who arm criminals will have guns. Marijuana is illegal, I smoked some with my friends earlier. I met a heroin addict at a party the other day. I know people who do LSD, which is much more complicated to produce than an automatic weapon. If murderers will have a weapon, which they will, at least in the US, people who aren't murderers should have them as well.

BOOM headshot65:
Oh goody. How did I just KNOW that it was a cheap shot at the fact that we are a red state -_-.

Oh come on, don't act all wounded.
The Kansas schoolboard banning books because they feature homosexuality (and parents having to band together to reinstate them) is just one example of morality policing getting involved unduly.
I'll certainly grant you that Kansas isn't the worst in that regard in the USA (Who is, Alabama, Mississipi, what do you think?), but to act like these big government Social Conservatives don't try their hardest and would attempt to use this opportunity is either, as I said, naive, or possibly simple denial.
I'm sorry if that hurts your state pride or whatever that is, but that doesn't make reality go away.

So someone actually took that crazy idea from a topic a few months ago and did it?

BOOM headshot65:
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 wouldn't have thought Conneticut needed it but...

Surprisingly, given my usual stance on guns, I'm for this. Trained proffesionals operating under tight restrictions who carry firearms for the promotion of a feeling of safety and well being among students, faculty and parents is good. In Canada, or in Alberta, at least, high schools have an armed police officer in them. No incidents that I know of where a student has seized a gun or a cop has gone crazy and killed people yet.

Teachers, now they're a different story. Teachers are not trained proffesionals and even if they're say, an ex cop or an ex soldier, they still should not be permitted to carry a firearm. They're civilians. Security personel and police officers are clear, uniformed symbols of authority who are clearly not civilians. That aside, most are not ex cops or ex soldiers. They might even be the kind to close their eyes, shoot and pray. Or leave it in their desk and forget to lock up. No. Inviting guns into an area is to invite violence into that area when those guns are not in hands of trained professionals. This doesn't deter school shootings, it encourages shootouts in school hallways.

Armed security guards who meet strict job requirements though, totally fine by me.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked