Teachers and Proffesors should be allowed to bring guns to schools

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT
 

Shock and Awe:

So instead of allowing there to be some sort of fight when something terrible happens its best to just let the shooter have his merry way with his victims? I don't understand the reasoning of people who think that shooting back at someone is a bad thing. If there is no one there to return fire then there is nothing to stop the shooter from being as effective as possible besides scared kids throwing bookbags and teachers making desperate charges at him.

Oddly enough, the post you quoted, did not, the way I understand it, say anything about shooting back at anyone.

It makes far more sense to make it impossible for someone to simply aim and fire by putting him in a situation where they themselves are under fire.

Double the fire, double the fun of anyone who gets caught in the crossfire. I mean, isn't it funny that whenever two people (or groups) are shooting at each other, the ones most likely to end up getting shot are the poor sods who happened to be right in the middle of it the moment it began?

I'm not sure how you make any environment less dangerous by making more bullets whiz around people's heads.

TheLycanKing144:

And according to the evidence, it is clear that stricter gun control measures, and a disarmed populace, increase the risk of violent crime by criminals. Strict gun control and bans do not work, look at New York, Washington DC, Los Angeles, Chicago etc...these are the biggest states for Gun Control and they also happen to be the most violent.

You can read all the facts here yourself: www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp

Uhrm, and what about the UK, France, Norway, all those other countries? The ones without legalised guns at all, and lower rates of violent crime?

Those places contain violent crime because they're highly populous centres, and most likely for a dozen other reasons. Correlation =/= causation.

Shock and Awe:

mokes310:

TheLycanKing144:
Ever notice how all these shootings happen at places where the populace is disarmed? Schools, College campuses, theaters,....they never happen at police stations, gun stores, or any other place that has a strong fire arm presence.

These tragedies could be prevented if they had an armed prescence on their grounds, I have the right to bear arms and I conceal carry, it is within my right to do so and protect myself if need be. Why are teachers and professors not given the same rights? Why are they being forced to put their student's lives at risk by not having the ability to protect them?

Bottom line is that it's simply wrong to deny teachers their right to bear arms and protect themselves and their kids. No one would shoot up another school again if their were armed teachers on the campus.

Here's one reason why that logic is flawed:

My gun is drawn on you, boom, you're dead.

This notion that you can "defend" yourself to prevent actions like these are simply foolish. Sure, you might be able to stop this person, but how do you account for the defender killing an innocent? Would the individual killed by the defender have benefited from having a gun? What if that person had had a gun and killed yet another innocent?

You don't put out a fire by adding more wood, some gasoline, and perhaps some napalm...

So instead of allowing there to be some sort of fight when something terrible happens its best to just let the shooter have his merry way with his victims? I don't understand the reasoning of people who think that shooting back at someone is a bad thing. If there is no one there to return fire then there is nothing to stop the shooter from being as effective as possible besides scared kids throwing bookbags and teachers making desperate charges at him. It makes far more sense to make it impossible for someone to simply aim and fire by putting him in a situation where they themselves are under fire.

So lives lost in any potential return fire are seen as acceptable casualties? Because that is exactly what you are arguing for. Well screw those kids who got in the way, at least I could fight back!

If someone has the drop on you, no amount of firearms you have could have on you will do a damn thing. Couple that with the aggressor having the advantage, and your weapons are even more useless. Now calculate how likely it would be that you would hit an innocent bystander with your fire. This vigilantism is a perverse, retributive, bronze-age style of thinking that is sadly, all too common in the US...

Again, you don't put out a fire by adding more wood. I ask you this question: Why do YOU need a handgun?

Vegosiux:

Shock and Awe:

So instead of allowing there to be some sort of fight when something terrible happens its best to just let the shooter have his merry way with his victims? I don't understand the reasoning of people who think that shooting back at someone is a bad thing. If there is no one there to return fire then there is nothing to stop the shooter from being as effective as possible besides scared kids throwing bookbags and teachers making desperate charges at him.

Oddly enough, the post you quoted, did not, the way I understand it, say anything about shooting back at anyone.

It makes far more sense to make it impossible for someone to simply aim and fire by putting him in a situation where they themselves are under fire.

Double the fire, double the fun of anyone who gets caught in the crossfire. I mean, isn't it funny that whenever two people (or groups) are shooting at each other, the ones most likely to end up getting shot are the poor sods who happened to be right in the middle of it the moment it began?

I'm not sure how you make any environment less dangerous by making more bullets whiz around people's heads.

mokes310:

So lives lost in any potential return fire are seen as acceptable casualties? Because that is exactly what you are arguing for. Well screw those kids who got in the way, at least I could fight back!

If someone has the drop on you, no amount of firearms you have could have on you will do a damn thing. Couple that with the aggressor having the advantage, and your weapons are even more useless. Now calculate how likely it would be that you would hit an innocent bystander with your fire. This vigilantism is a perverse, retributive, bronze-age style of thinking that is sadly, all too common in the US...

Again, you don't put out a fire by adding more wood. I ask you this question: Why do YOU need a handgun?

Okay I am seriously finding it hard to understand what is so perplexing about this situation. I'll put it as plainly as I can possibly manage.

In Situation A you have an active shooter enter a room in which there are no armed person. In this situation any defensive measures will be quite futile unless there has been significant forewarning to the attack. In this situation the shooter will be able to fire upon the individuals inside basically at will. This means he can essentially keep going as long as he pleases. If we operate under the assumption that he is aiming for as high a body count as possible that means every person in that room is going to be shot and killed. They will have absolutely no defense. Its shooting fish in a barrel with people.

Now, in Situation B we have the same scenario except lets say an individual in the room is carrying a concealed weapon. In this scenario lets again assume there is no warning; worst case scenario. In this case since there are multiple targets the individual who is carrying a firearm will have a chance to draw his weapon and return fire. Now this does have a very real danger or harming individuals other then the shooter in cross fire; I do not deny this. The thing is though, it makes it impossible for the shooter to kill people at will until that person shooting back is dead or otherwise incapacitated. This means there is a real possibility that the shooter will be neutralized by the 'vigilante'. The reason you want this is because without that person returning fire the shooter would have been free to kill every person in that room without interference. So even if the person shooting back hits bystanders he still will be saving lives if he stops the shooter.

You two are making a very large fuss over the possibility of a person carrying a gun hitting someone while fighting back, but you are forgetting one really important factor. That is that without that person shooting back there is nothing keeping a shooter from killing as many people as he pleases until police arrive, enter the building, find him, and then shoot at him. In the time for police to respond to such a case the shooter will be able to kill as much as he pleases. Its just more time for him to go from room to room and kill defenseless people.

As to why I need a handgun; my rifle is very conspicuous and makes some people nervous. If I was allowed to carry a concealed handgun I would but alas, it is forbidden by the MAN.

Silvanus:

TheLycanKing144:

And according to the evidence, it is clear that stricter gun control measures, and a disarmed populace, increase the risk of violent crime by criminals. Strict gun control and bans do not work, look at New York, Washington DC, Los Angeles, Chicago etc...these are the biggest states for Gun Control and they also happen to be the most violent.

You can read all the facts here yourself: www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp

Uhrm, and what about the UK, France, Norway, all those other countries? The ones without legalised guns at all, and lower rates of violent crime?

Those places contain violent crime because they're highly populous centres, and most likely for a dozen other reasons. Correlation =/= causation.

Those countries are probably missing a lot of factors which cause violence/crime. For example, there is hardly any organized crime compared to the US and those countries are a lot more homogenous than the US.

As for population centers, liberal states are not the only ones with highly populous centres, conservative/moderate states also have those.

And hell, in New York State, 4 out of 5 of the biggest cities have horrible crime rates with a relatively small population (200,000-250,000) compared to those cities listed. The only city in NY state that is even halfway safe is NYC because they tripled their police force by cannablizing the rest of the state of its resources, causing the rest of the state to fall into a downward spiral in an effort to save NYC and NYC only (both in crime and economically) at the expense of everyone else in the state.

So yea, you can reduce crime with a liberal outlook in the US, you just have to send over half of the country to a third world status to achieve it.

That is not to say that disarming a populace can not work elsewhere, it is just that gun control has proven time and time again to not work inside of the US.

Shock and Awe:

Vegosiux:

Shock and Awe:

So instead of allowing there to be some sort of fight when something terrible happens its best to just let the shooter have his merry way with his victims? I don't understand the reasoning of people who think that shooting back at someone is a bad thing. If there is no one there to return fire then there is nothing to stop the shooter from being as effective as possible besides scared kids throwing bookbags and teachers making desperate charges at him.

Oddly enough, the post you quoted, did not, the way I understand it, say anything about shooting back at anyone.

It makes far more sense to make it impossible for someone to simply aim and fire by putting him in a situation where they themselves are under fire.

Double the fire, double the fun of anyone who gets caught in the crossfire. I mean, isn't it funny that whenever two people (or groups) are shooting at each other, the ones most likely to end up getting shot are the poor sods who happened to be right in the middle of it the moment it began?

I'm not sure how you make any environment less dangerous by making more bullets whiz around people's heads.

mokes310:

So lives lost in any potential return fire are seen as acceptable casualties? Because that is exactly what you are arguing for. Well screw those kids who got in the way, at least I could fight back!

If someone has the drop on you, no amount of firearms you have could have on you will do a damn thing. Couple that with the aggressor having the advantage, and your weapons are even more useless. Now calculate how likely it would be that you would hit an innocent bystander with your fire. This vigilantism is a perverse, retributive, bronze-age style of thinking that is sadly, all too common in the US...

Again, you don't put out a fire by adding more wood. I ask you this question: Why do YOU need a handgun?

Okay I am seriously finding it hard to understand what is so perplexing about this situation. I'll put it as plainly as I can possibly manage.

In Situation A you have an active shooter enter a room in which there are no armed person. In this situation any defensive measures will be quite futile unless there has been significant forewarning to the attack. In this situation the shooter will be able to fire upon the individuals inside basically at will. This means he can essentially keep going as long as he pleases. If we operate under the assumption that he is aiming for as high a body count as possible that means every person in that room is going to be shot and killed. They will have absolutely no defense. Its shooting fish in a barrel with people.

Now, in Situation B we have the same scenario except lets say an individual in the room is carrying a concealed weapon. In this scenario lets again assume there is no warning; worst case scenario. In this case since there are multiple targets the individual who is carrying a firearm will have a chance to draw his weapon and return fire. Now this does have a very real danger or harming individuals other then the shooter in cross fire; I do not deny this. The thing is though, it makes it impossible for the shooter to kill people at will until that person shooting back is dead or otherwise incapacitated. This means there is a real possibility that the shooter will be neutralized by the 'vigilante'. The reason you want this is because without that person returning fire the shooter would have been free to kill every person in that room without interference. So even if the person shooting back hits bystanders he still will be saving lives if he stops the shooter.

You two are making a very large fuss over the possibility of a person carrying a gun hitting someone while fighting back, but you are forgetting one really important factor. That is that without that person shooting back there is nothing keeping a shooter from killing as many people as he pleases until police arrive, enter the building, find him, and then shoot at him. In the time for police to respond to such a case the shooter will be able to kill as much as he pleases. Its just more time for him to go from room to room and kill defenseless people.

As to why I need a handgun; my rifle is very conspicuous and makes some people nervous. If I was allowed to carry a concealed handgun I would but alas, it is forbidden by the MAN.

And that's exactly the answer I would expect from a gun apologist.

Scenario A: Kills people.

Scenario B: Due to the aforementioned allowance of figures of authority being allowed to carry a concealed weapon, would they either: A) be more likely to be targeted first by the aggressor because they could possibly be carrying a weapon; or B) be less likely to be targeted because they would be allowed to carry a weapon.

But what is perhaps the single most disturbing notion coming from you is this:

"You two are making a very large fuss over the possibility of a person carrying a gun hitting someone while fighting back, but you are forgetting one really important factor."

This wanton and callus disregard to even entertain this possibility as extremely likely shows a level of maturity on par with a 12 year old who got his first copy of [insert shooter here]. You don't even bother to calculate the legal ramifications that arise because of these scenarios.

So, to take your example to its next logical step. The conceal carry individual manages to stop an aggressor after they kill X amount of people. But during the process, they killed a pregnant woman. Is he not at fault? It was him that pulled the trigger. Will there be no justice for the family of the innocent bystander killed by vigilante justice?

Let me ask you this one question: How many members of militaries around the world are killed by friendly fire during combat? Remember, those people are trained to kill people and they still make mistakes during the heat of combat. What makes you think a barely trained, 54yr old professor of Anthropology is going to be that much better a shot?

I hate long quote trains.

mokes310:

And that's exactly the answer I would expect from a gun apologist.

Scenario A: Kills people.

Scenario B: Due to the aforementioned allowance of figures of authority being allowed to carry a concealed weapon, would they either: A) be more likely to be targeted first by the aggressor because they could possibly be carrying a weapon; or B) be less likely to be targeted because they would be allowed to carry a weapon.

But what is perhaps the single most disturbing notion coming from you is this:

"You two are making a very large fuss over the possibility of a person carrying a gun hitting someone while fighting back, but you are forgetting one really important factor."

This wanton and callus disregard to even entertain this possibility as extremely likely shows a level of maturity on par with a 12 year old who got his first copy of [insert shooter here]. You don't even bother to calculate the legal ramifications that arise because of these scenarios.

So, to take your example to its next logical step. The conceal carry individual manages to stop an aggressor after they kill X amount of people. But during the process, they killed a pregnant woman. Is he not at fault? It was him that pulled the trigger. Will there be no justice for the family of the innocent bystander killed by vigilante justice?

Let me ask you this one question: How many members of militaries around the world are killed by friendly fire during combat? Remember, those people are trained to kill people and they still make mistakes during the heat of combat. What makes you think a barely trained, 54yr old professor of Anthropology is going to be that much better a shot?

I don't know how much plainer I can make the concept. When there is no one to defend a group of unarmed people all their lives are forfeit. Their lives are solely in the hands of an unstable individual who wants nothing more then to see them all dead. The reason I have little issue with the possibility of some innocents being hit by someone shooting back at an aggressor is because without that person shooting back they are all dead anyway. By standing up and shooting back you are giving everyone in that room a far larger chance of walking away then they had when it was one person shooting them at will. I don't see how that is a hard concept.

Do you think that all the innocents who are at the mercy of some merciless gunmen would be better served by hiding under their desks and praying to god that the shooter decides to pass them over, or by someone trying to protect them?

You are also again making the mistake that just because someone is carrying a weapon its completely obvious. Its refereed to as "Concealed Carry" for a reason. And on the note of the shooting ability of a 54 year old professor that all depends on the person. Last time I was at the range a gentleman who reminded me of my old physics teacher put magazine after magazine into a hole maybe two inches across on a targets head. By far the best shot I've seen in a long time. However, lets assume that the teacher is mediocre, are they really better off throwing themselves at the assailant hoping it does good? Or shall we at least give them a chance?

Shock and Awe:
I hate long quote trains.

mokes310:

And that's exactly the answer I would expect from a gun apologist.

Scenario A: Kills people.

Scenario B: Due to the aforementioned allowance of figures of authority being allowed to carry a concealed weapon, would they either: A) be more likely to be targeted first by the aggressor because they could possibly be carrying a weapon; or B) be less likely to be targeted because they would be allowed to carry a weapon.

But what is perhaps the single most disturbing notion coming from you is this:

"You two are making a very large fuss over the possibility of a person carrying a gun hitting someone while fighting back, but you are forgetting one really important factor."

This wanton and callus disregard to even entertain this possibility as extremely likely shows a level of maturity on par with a 12 year old who got his first copy of [insert shooter here]. You don't even bother to calculate the legal ramifications that arise because of these scenarios.

So, to take your example to its next logical step. The conceal carry individual manages to stop an aggressor after they kill X amount of people. But during the process, they killed a pregnant woman. Is he not at fault? It was him that pulled the trigger. Will there be no justice for the family of the innocent bystander killed by vigilante justice?

Let me ask you this one question: How many members of militaries around the world are killed by friendly fire during combat? Remember, those people are trained to kill people and they still make mistakes during the heat of combat. What makes you think a barely trained, 54yr old professor of Anthropology is going to be that much better a shot?

I don't know how much plainer I can make the concept. When there is no one to defend a group of unarmed people all their lives are forfeit. Their lives are solely in the hands of an unstable individual who wants nothing more then to see them all dead. The reason I have little issue with the possibility of some innocents being hit by someone shooting back at an aggressor is because without that person shooting back they are all dead anyway. By standing up and shooting back you are giving everyone in that room a far larger chance of walking away then they had when it was one person shooting them at will. I don't see how that is a hard concept.

Do you think that all the innocents who are at the mercy of some merciless gunmen would be better served by hiding under their desks and praying to god that the shooter decides to pass them over, or by someone trying to protect them?

You are also again making the mistake that just because someone is carrying a weapon its completely obvious. Its refereed to as "Concealed Carry" for a reason. And on the note of the shooting ability of a 54 year old professor that all depends on the person. Last time I was at the range a gentleman who reminded me of my old physics teacher put magazine after magazine into a hole maybe two inches across on a targets head. By far the best shot I've seen in a long time. However, lets assume that the teacher is mediocre, are they really better off throwing themselves at the assailant hoping it does good? Or shall we at least give them a chance?

No, I'm afraid it is you (and sadly, most gun advocates) who is/are failing to understand and see things clearly here. Name one example in which a mass-shooter killed literally everyone that could have been killed? Having trouble? Let me help you. None of them.

No one is arguing that having someone shoot back "could" prevent further killing. The failure to recognize the ramifications of arming wide swaths of people is what is the single most disturbing aspect of your opinion. As I said before, it shows a wanton and callus disregard for said lives all in the selfish and misguided notion that, "I'm a fucking hero, I could save every one!"

The sad fact of the matter is that adding more guns to the equation clearly leads to more gun deaths [1]. While that one person may save some people that one time, over the course of time, they'll take far more lives than they actually will save.

In the words of Jessie Pinkman from Breaking Bad, "Yeah, science bitch!"

[1]http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/

Silvanus:

TheLycanKing144:

And according to the evidence, it is clear that stricter gun control measures, and a disarmed populace, increase the risk of violent crime by criminals. Strict gun control and bans do not work, look at New York, Washington DC, Los Angeles, Chicago etc...these are the biggest states for Gun Control and they also happen to be the most violent.

You can read all the facts here yourself: www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp

Uhrm, and what about the UK, France, Norway, all those other countries? The ones without legalised guns at all, and lower rates of violent crime?

Those places contain violent crime because they're highly populous centres, and most likely for a dozen other reasons. Correlation =/= causation.

I would also cite lack of homogenous gun laws across the states as a reason. It is far too easy to just bring weapons in from states with lax guns laws. Hawaii has fairly strict gun control, and a very low rate of gun crime (and crime overall). Part of this may be due to lower population density, but it is also likely due to the area being fairly easy to isolate.

TheLycanKing144:
[

There is already training involved for a concealed carry permit (you have to prove that you know how to operate and handle gun effectively and safely). The basic rules are easy to learn and follow, it's like driving a car, you need to know certain things but you don't need to be a NASCAR driver to know how to operate a civilian car effectively.

I do support some things for concealed carry permits, such as Hunters Safety which I believe should be REQUIRED for ALL gun owners regardless. It's a myth that right-to-bear-arms advocates such as myself are completely against gun control, most of us do in fact support common sense measures.

The basic rules are very easy to learn indeed. But to follow is something else. I have accidentally broken them enough to know it is not something you just get good at by training a bit. It has to become a reflex. Something you do always do regardless of the context. It's for instance very easy to follow the rules when you're at a shooting range which is a controlled environment and where your gun is what it is all about. However in an uncontrolled environment where your gun is, hopefully, not the center of your attention like a school it's a whole different story.

Ryotknife:

Batou667:

TheLycanKing144:
Ever notice how all these shootings happen at places where the populace is disarmed? Schools, College campuses, theaters,....

military bases...

Notice something else? Shootings all involve guns. Why not just disarm?

(That was a rhetorical question, by the way. I'm not expecting America to drop its gun culture overnight).

ironically, in military bases most of the soldiers ARE disarmed. Only the MPs carry weapon.

IIRC, the latest shooting to happen at a US military base that I recall making the news happened at the shooting range there. Guy was back from Iraq or 'stan, had problems, one of the victims was trying to help him get over it by taking him shooting.

TheLycanKing144:

Bottom line is that it's simply wrong to deny teachers their right to bear arms and protect themselves and their kids. No one would shoot up another school again if their were armed teachers on the campus.

Just concerning my state, you're a wee bit late to the party there boy-o. It may be security rather than teachers, but I still support it 100%........even though Kansas hasnt had a mass shooting by any meaning of the word since The Lawrence Massacre (aka Quantrill's Raid on Lawrence) in 1863. On that note, the last mass killing we had that DIDNT involve guns happened around the same time in the Pottawatomie Creek Massacre in 1856, where John Brown and some others killed a large family of 5 with nothing but Broadswords simply for being anti-abolition (they had never acted on it though, and didnt own slaves). And anyone who is perceptive will notice something about the dates present that can largely dismiss those killings in the "Mass (....)" Section.

mokes310:

Shock and Awe:
I hate long quote trains.

mokes310:

And that's exactly the answer I would expect from a gun apologist.

Scenario A: Kills people.

Scenario B: Due to the aforementioned allowance of figures of authority being allowed to carry a concealed weapon, would they either: A) be more likely to be targeted first by the aggressor because they could possibly be carrying a weapon; or B) be less likely to be targeted because they would be allowed to carry a weapon.

But what is perhaps the single most disturbing notion coming from you is this:

"You two are making a very large fuss over the possibility of a person carrying a gun hitting someone while fighting back, but you are forgetting one really important factor."

This wanton and callus disregard to even entertain this possibility as extremely likely shows a level of maturity on par with a 12 year old who got his first copy of [insert shooter here]. You don't even bother to calculate the legal ramifications that arise because of these scenarios.

So, to take your example to its next logical step. The conceal carry individual manages to stop an aggressor after they kill X amount of people. But during the process, they killed a pregnant woman. Is he not at fault? It was him that pulled the trigger. Will there be no justice for the family of the innocent bystander killed by vigilante justice?

Let me ask you this one question: How many members of militaries around the world are killed by friendly fire during combat? Remember, those people are trained to kill people and they still make mistakes during the heat of combat. What makes you think a barely trained, 54yr old professor of Anthropology is going to be that much better a shot?

I don't know how much plainer I can make the concept. When there is no one to defend a group of unarmed people all their lives are forfeit. Their lives are solely in the hands of an unstable individual who wants nothing more then to see them all dead. The reason I have little issue with the possibility of some innocents being hit by someone shooting back at an aggressor is because without that person shooting back they are all dead anyway. By standing up and shooting back you are giving everyone in that room a far larger chance of walking away then they had when it was one person shooting them at will. I don't see how that is a hard concept.

Do you think that all the innocents who are at the mercy of some merciless gunmen would be better served by hiding under their desks and praying to god that the shooter decides to pass them over, or by someone trying to protect them?

You are also again making the mistake that just because someone is carrying a weapon its completely obvious. Its refereed to as "Concealed Carry" for a reason. And on the note of the shooting ability of a 54 year old professor that all depends on the person. Last time I was at the range a gentleman who reminded me of my old physics teacher put magazine after magazine into a hole maybe two inches across on a targets head. By far the best shot I've seen in a long time. However, lets assume that the teacher is mediocre, are they really better off throwing themselves at the assailant hoping it does good? Or shall we at least give them a chance?

No, I'm afraid it is you (and sadly, most gun advocates) who is/are failing to understand and see things clearly here. Name one example in which a mass-shooter killed literally everyone that could have been killed? Having trouble? Let me help you. None of them.

No one is arguing that having someone shoot back "could" prevent further killing. The failure to recognize the ramifications of arming wide swaths of people is what is the single most disturbing aspect of your opinion. As I said before, it shows a wanton and callus disregard for said lives all in the selfish and misguided notion that, "I'm a fucking hero, I could save every one!"

The sad fact of the matter is that adding more guns to the equation clearly leads to more gun deaths [1]. While that one person may save some people that one time, over the course of time, they'll take far more lives than they actually will save.

In the words of Jessie Pinkman from Breaking Bad, "Yeah, science bitch!"

[1]http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/

You're expanding this argument to guns in general now? Or are you speaking specifically on weapons permit holders? If you are speaking on the former that's fairly off topic as I believe the current topic is specifically about letting teachers who have permits to carry firearms, not the general issue of guns. As for the effectiveness of ccw holders I would direct you towards the incident that occurred in the Oregon mall right before Christmas. A man with an AR-15 opened fire on a crowd during the Christmas shopping rush. An extremely target rich environment. However instead of dozens of people dead like shootings in "gun free zones" like sandy hook and Virginia tech, there were two deaths if I recall correctly and one was the shooter. This was because someone carrying a concealed handgun returned fire and forced the shooter to stop firing upon fleeing people and focus on the person attacking him. There was also a theater shooting almost immediately after aurora that killed only the shooter due to an off duty sheriff pulling her concealed weapon and killing him.

If you can show me a case of a responding civilian having a "shootout" with a shooter and causing more damage then prevented I'd be happy to see it. As of now I can only think of one instance and that was the police officer at the empire state building.

The question of firearms and violence in general is an interesting one, but for this thread I'd prefer to remain on the topic of permit holders' effectiveness(or lack of depend on your stance) at deterring and responding to those who want to cause harm to innocent people. If you wish to discuss the broader topic I'd personally prefer you create a more general thread so we aren't splitting this one to much.

Also, apologies for lack of source, I'm on my phone.

TheLycanKing144:
Ever notice how all these shootings happen at places where the populace is disarmed? Schools, College campuses, theaters,....they never happen at police stations, gun stores, or any other place that has a strong fire arm presence.

These tragedies could be prevented if they had an armed prescence on their grounds, I have the right to bear arms and I conceal carry, it is within my right to do so and protect myself if need be. Why are teachers and professors not given the same rights? Why are they being forced to put their student's lives at risk by not having the ability to protect them?

Bottom line is that it's simply wrong to deny teachers their right to bear arms and protect themselves and their kids. No one would shoot up another school again if their were armed teachers on the campus.

The last time I've checked most gun stores either do not allow guns or have a strict gun control policy for carries...
P.S. the amount of accidental shootings in the US is over 50% of the deliberate ones, school shootings in the US are a none-issue except for rare incidents that catch the attention of the populous. Arming teachers will most likely will get more kids hurt due to accidents than all school shootings in history put together.

Vegosiux:

You could, but there's something to be said about a society that would require teachers to be well-trained in firearms use.

That it would be a society a little closer to what Heinlein described in Starship Troopers? A society where merit and ability would be the tools for measuring a Citizens and a civilians worth and only those proven to be of "the right material" would get the privilege to vote? A fully militarized and armed society full of patriots ready to take the fight to any threat both foreign and domestic?

Silvanus:

TheLycanKing144:

And according to the evidence, it is clear that stricter gun control measures, and a disarmed populace, increase the risk of violent crime by criminals. Strict gun control and bans do not work, look at New York, Washington DC, Los Angeles, Chicago etc...these are the biggest states for Gun Control and they also happen to be the most violent.

You can read all the facts here yourself: www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp

Uhrm, and what about the UK, France, Norway, all those other countries? The ones without legalised guns at all, and lower rates of violent crime?

Those places contain violent crime because they're highly populous centres, and most likely for a dozen other reasons. Correlation =/= causation.

What about them? Last time I checked the UK still has quite a bit of crime, regardless however look at Switzerland. Most gun friendly country in the world and they have less violent crime than just about everyone else.

TheLycanKing144:

Silvanus:

TheLycanKing144:

And according to the evidence, it is clear that stricter gun control measures, and a disarmed populace, increase the risk of violent crime by criminals. Strict gun control and bans do not work, look at New York, Washington DC, Los Angeles, Chicago etc...these are the biggest states for Gun Control and they also happen to be the most violent.

You can read all the facts here yourself: www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp

Uhrm, and what about the UK, France, Norway, all those other countries? The ones without legalised guns at all, and lower rates of violent crime?

Those places contain violent crime because they're highly populous centres, and most likely for a dozen other reasons. Correlation =/= causation.

What about them? Last time I checked the UK still has quite a bit of crime, regardless however look at Switzerland. Most gun friendly country in the world and they have less violent crime than just about everyone else.

Yeah, and you know what crime? Stabbing and brute force.
image
Figure 8: Percentage of offences currently recorded as homicide by apparent method of killing and sex of victim, 2011-12

Notice how lethal shootings are a quarter of lethal stabbings and even less for women? I'm not saying it's because guns are hard to get by in the UK but you can assume it's not a total coincidence either.

TheLycanKing144:

What about them? Last time I checked the UK still has quite a bit of crime, regardless however look at Switzerland. Most gun friendly country in the world and they have less violent crime than just about everyone else.

How much do you actually know about swiss gun laws?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Switzerland

The U.S. has much more lax laws regarding firearms than the swiss in many areas.

Gethsemani:

Vegosiux:

You could, but there's something to be said about a society that would require teachers to be well-trained in firearms use.

That it would be a society a little closer to what Heinlein described in Starship Troopers? A society where merit and ability would be the tools for measuring a Citizens and a civilians worth and only those proven to be of "the right material" would get the privilege to vote? A fully militarized and armed society full of patriots ready to take the fight to any threat both foreign and domestic?

That's ridiculously alarmist. And you should note that you're now taking that out of context. The teachers that would be required to know how to handle guns would be limited to those who wanted to bring them into schools. I know this because he was quoting me when he said it.

Skeleon:
Perhaps it's just too late for the USA? Perhaps they are doomed to high numbers of deaths through firearms? Not just through spree killers, but through day-to-day murder and homicide? And controlling guns really just wouldn't work because they're way past a point of no return, with hundreds of millions of weapons already in circulation?

Perhaps at some point I can just stop giving a shit and let people keep doing this to themselves and theirs without speaking up. But I don't think I really want to become such a person.

Wow Skeleon hitting home freaking hard. Well said. Damn well said.

I feel the same way to be honest. I think that a gun free society is likely to be superior to one full of guns. However I think America is too invested in gun culture to do anything about it now. I mean hell we cant treat the countries the same. Lets review:

England, an island nation with no land borders and a small surface area of coast to patrol and with VERY little gun manufacturers/distribution that ever sell to the general public. Basically no one has a gun.

America, bordering the nation that is the heart of the drug cartels with many many many guns in circulation and a thriving civilian gun industry. A VERY large coast line with little chance for unified action due to varying gun laws from state to state.

At this rate i have to say America is probably safer keeping its guns than trying to ban them. I think moving to ban guns would be a terrible move in the USA even though im VERY happy they are rare here in the UK.

However im fucking terrified of America. I want to go there on holiday. But seriously. If this rhetoric is correct. If teachers need guns to be safe in school. If the pro guns pro USA people are correct. Isnt ANY tourist who goes to the USA borderline suicidal? We dont get guns because we are tourists. We are defenceless. And apparently the only way to not be gunned down is to own a gun. If i want to visit for a long period of time and guns are essential for survival and self defence why should i ever visit? According to these people i shouldnt and no one should. Its incredibly unsafe. According to these people only an idiot would visit the USA for a long period of time. Since we arent allowed guns. And guns are almost necessary for protection in the USA.

Revnak:

Gethsemani:

Vegosiux:

You could, but there's something to be said about a society that would require teachers to be well-trained in firearms use.

That it would be a society a little closer to what Heinlein described in Starship Troopers? A society where merit and ability would be the tools for measuring a Citizens and a civilians worth and only those proven to be of "the right material" would get the privilege to vote? A fully militarized and armed society full of patriots ready to take the fight to any threat both foreign and domestic?

That's ridiculously alarmist. And you should note that you're now taking that out of context. The teachers that would be required to know how to handle guns would be limited to those who wanted to bring them into schools. I know this because he was quoting me when he said it.

Ironically, it's not nearly as alarmist as the talk of some people around here (not you, I'm just hijacking your post to make a point), that the moment a society gets disarmed its government is going to turn into a tyranny and the only recourse it so keep the guns and shoot at anyone who'd have the audacity to suggest restrictions.

Vegosiux:

Revnak:

Gethsemani:

That it would be a society a little closer to what Heinlein described in Starship Troopers? A society where merit and ability would be the tools for measuring a Citizens and a civilians worth and only those proven to be of "the right material" would get the privilege to vote? A fully militarized and armed society full of patriots ready to take the fight to any threat both foreign and domestic?

That's ridiculously alarmist. And you should note that you're now taking that out of context. The teachers that would be required to know how to handle guns would be limited to those who wanted to bring them into schools. I know this because he was quoting me when he said it.

Ironically, it's not nearly as alarmist as the talk of some people around here (not you, I'm just hijacking your post to make a point), that the moment a society gets disarmed its government is going to turn into a tyranny and the only recourse it so keep the guns and shoot at anyone who'd have the audacity to suggest restrictions.

True. Such people stand in the way of any meaningful gun control. Seriously, that video of the guy freaking out about the idea of a gun registry honestly disturbs. Even Farson never argued something along those lines (in response to a registry at least, he did seem to draw a dividing line between those for and against him and seemed to occasionally fear the exact circumstances you mentioned here).

On a side note, I suppose I spend more time arguing with those who would rather institute a gun ban than those that are against any and all gun control, which I think can give off the wrong impression at times. To be completely honest, I feel like those types are beyond all hope.

BiscuitTrouser:

However im fucking terrified of America. I want to go there on holiday. But seriously. If this rhetoric is correct. If teachers need guns to be safe in school. If the pro guns pro USA people are correct. Isnt ANY tourist who goes to the USA borderline suicidal? We dont get guns because we are tourists. We are defenceless. And apparently the only way to not be gunned down is to own a gun. If i want to visit for a long period of time and guns are essential for survival and self defence why should i ever visit? According to these people i shouldnt and no one should. Its incredibly unsafe. According to these people only an idiot would visit the USA for a long period of time. Since we arent allowed guns. And guns are almost necessary for protection in the USA.

Thats all rhetoric, unless you go somewhere where the crime is concentrated(basically the very low income area of any large city) you have an infinitely small chance of actually having anything come up. The travel guide for the US actually does a decent job of covering it. If you are out somewhere in the country you will be more likely to find yourself killed by a bear then a gun.

http://wikitravel.org/en/United_States_of_America#Stay_safe

Shock and Awe:

mokes310:

Shock and Awe:
I hate long quote trains.

I don't know how much plainer I can make the concept. When there is no one to defend a group of unarmed people all their lives are forfeit. Their lives are solely in the hands of an unstable individual who wants nothing more then to see them all dead. The reason I have little issue with the possibility of some innocents being hit by someone shooting back at an aggressor is because without that person shooting back they are all dead anyway. By standing up and shooting back you are giving everyone in that room a far larger chance of walking away then they had when it was one person shooting them at will. I don't see how that is a hard concept.

Do you think that all the innocents who are at the mercy of some merciless gunmen would be better served by hiding under their desks and praying to god that the shooter decides to pass them over, or by someone trying to protect them?

You are also again making the mistake that just because someone is carrying a weapon its completely obvious. Its refereed to as "Concealed Carry" for a reason. And on the note of the shooting ability of a 54 year old professor that all depends on the person. Last time I was at the range a gentleman who reminded me of my old physics teacher put magazine after magazine into a hole maybe two inches across on a targets head. By far the best shot I've seen in a long time. However, lets assume that the teacher is mediocre, are they really better off throwing themselves at the assailant hoping it does good? Or shall we at least give them a chance?

No, I'm afraid it is you (and sadly, most gun advocates) who is/are failing to understand and see things clearly here. Name one example in which a mass-shooter killed literally everyone that could have been killed? Having trouble? Let me help you. None of them.

No one is arguing that having someone shoot back "could" prevent further killing. The failure to recognize the ramifications of arming wide swaths of people is what is the single most disturbing aspect of your opinion. As I said before, it shows a wanton and callus disregard for said lives all in the selfish and misguided notion that, "I'm a fucking hero, I could save every one!"

The sad fact of the matter is that adding more guns to the equation clearly leads to more gun deaths [1]. While that one person may save some people that one time, over the course of time, they'll take far more lives than they actually will save.

In the words of Jessie Pinkman from Breaking Bad, "Yeah, science bitch!"

[1]http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/

You're expanding this argument to guns in general now? Or are you speaking specifically on weapons permit holders? If you are speaking on the former that's fairly off topic as I believe the current topic is specifically about letting teachers who have permits to carry firearms, not the general issue of guns. As for the effectiveness of ccw holders I would direct you towards the incident that occurred in the Oregon mall right before Christmas. A man with an AR-15 opened fire on a crowd during the Christmas shopping rush. An extremely target rich environment. However instead of dozens of people dead like shootings in "gun free zones" like sandy hook and Virginia tech, there were two deaths if I recall correctly and one was the shooter. This was because someone carrying a concealed handgun returned fire and forced the shooter to stop firing upon fleeing people and focus on the person attacking him. There was also a theater shooting almost immediately after aurora that killed only the shooter due to an off duty sheriff pulling her concealed weapon and killing him.

If you can show me a case of a responding civilian having a "shootout" with a shooter and causing more damage then prevented I'd be happy to see it. As of now I can only think of one instance and that was the police officer at the empire state building.

The question of firearms and violence in general is an interesting one, but for this thread I'd prefer to remain on the topic of permit holders' effectiveness(or lack of depend on your stance) at deterring and responding to those who want to cause harm to innocent people. If you wish to discuss the broader topic I'd personally prefer you create a more general thread so we aren't splitting this one to much.

Also, apologies for lack of source, I'm on my phone.

Wow, the cognitive dissonance is strong with this one. And seriously, read our full discussion and do tell me who moved the goal posts first?

The how do you explain the Ft. Hood shootings? Gunman kills twelve, wounds 30, and guess what? There were PLENTY of guns around to stop him. This is a prime example of why you can't just point to one event and say, "AH-HA, SEE, I'M CORRECT!"

Look at the research I provided above, because it may open your eyes a bit...or reinforce your cognitive dissonance.

Also, ask yourself why we aren't studying gun violence on a national level? Better yet, ask why it's illegal for the government to FUND research on gun violence. Where there's smoke, there's fire young man...

Revnak:

True. Such people stand in the way of any meaningful gun control. Seriously, that video of the guy freaking out about the idea of a gun registry honestly disturbs.

Are you referring to the video I linked earlier or this one? (Couldn't find the original video.)

As the saying goes: the people who are the most "pro-gun" are the people I trust least with them.

mokes310:
Wow, the cognitive dissonance is strong with this one. And seriously, read our full discussion and do tell me who moved the goal posts first?

The how do you explain the Ft. Hood shootings? Gunman kills twelve, wounds 30, and guess what? There were PLENTY of guns around to stop him. This is a prime example of why you can't just point to one event and say, "AH-HA, SEE, I'M CORRECT!"

Look at the research I provided above, because it may open your eyes a bit...or reinforce your cognitive dissonance.

Also, ask yourself why we aren't studying gun violence on a national level? Better yet, ask why it's illegal for the government to FUND research on gun violence. Where there's smoke, there's fire young man...

Will you please refrain from insulting people and belittling the other side? Its quite unnecessary. It only serves to make you look childish. Also, I believe I have stayed consistent on the subject of individuals with carry permits(in this thread's specific case, teachers) effectiveness on responding to incidents involving active shooters.

As for Fort Hood you are actually completely wrong. Have you ever been on a US military base? I have been on quite a few and I can tell you with great certainty that people are not allowed to carry firearms; issued or personnel; unless their duties require it. If I remember the incident correctly it happened in the Mess Hall and that means no one there had a gun as only MPs and other Security would have weapons. He was shot by a Civilian Guard if I recall correctly. Do you have any other incidents that actually involve scenarios with lots of people with guns?

As for looking into gun violence on a national scale I've done that quite a bit if you care to dig up some old threads as I do not want to diverge this one anymore. But to keep it short I have found that cultural and economic factors have a far larger and more noticeable impact on violence; gun and otherwise; then the prevalence of weapons. The ban on government funding of research into the matter is an obvious move by gun advocates, I won't deny that. Thats politicians doing what politicians do. If you would like to discuss this topic further I recommend you start a new thread.

Shock and Awe:

mokes310:
The how do you explain the Ft. Hood shootings? Gunman kills twelve, wounds 30, and guess what? There were PLENTY of guns around to stop him. This is a prime example of why you can't just point to one event and say, "AH-HA, SEE, I'M CORRECT!"

As for Fort Hood you are actually completely wrong. Have you ever been on a US military base? I have been on quite a few and I can tell you with great certainty that people are not allowed to carry firearms; issued or personnel; unless their duties require it. If I remember the incident correctly it happened in the Mess Hall and that means no one there had a gun as only MPs and other Security would have weapons. He was shot by a Civilian Guard if I recall correctly. Do you have any other incidents that actually involve scenarios with lots of people with guns?

If I remember correctly, it turned out that all of Fort Hood was a gun free zone.

mokes310:
The how do you explain the Ft. Hood shootings? Gunman kills twelve, wounds 30, and guess what? There were PLENTY of guns around to stop him.

Just to clarify, the only personnel allowed to carry firearms on US bases are security personnel and Military Police. To get access to firearms on a US Military base, you need to visit the Armory where nearly every single firearm on hand is locked away, not on racks upon racks where it is easy to access them.

And the shooting didn't happen anywhere near said Armory.

This is a prime example of why you can't just point to one event and say, "AH-HA, SEE, I'M CORRECT!"

Yours is also a prime example.

Also, ask yourself why we aren't studying gun violence on a national level? Better yet, ask why it's illegal for the government to FUND research on gun violence. Where there's smoke, there's fire young man...

Every statistic thrown around in this thread about gun violence is brought to you because of a study on gun violence.

Smagmuck_:

mokes310:
The how do you explain the Ft. Hood shootings? Gunman kills twelve, wounds 30, and guess what? There were PLENTY of guns around to stop him.

Just to clarify, the only personnel allowed to carry firearms on US bases are security personnel and Military Police. To get access to firearms on a US Military base, you need to visit the Armory where nearly every single firearm on hand is locked away, not on racks upon racks where it is easy to access them.

And the shooting didn't happen anywhere near said Armory.

This is a prime example of why you can't just point to one event and say, "AH-HA, SEE, I'M CORRECT!"

Yours is also a prime example.

Also, ask yourself why we aren't studying gun violence on a national level? Better yet, ask why it's illegal for the government to FUND research on gun violence. Where there's smoke, there's fire young man...

Every statistic thrown around in this thread about gun violence is brought to you because of a study on gun violence.

I was using Ft. Hood as an example of WHEN there were guns present (MP's and civilian security forces), they were of little use in stopping the rampage from already tragic figures. It does not matter where the guns were, they were still there on those who were allowed to carry them. So the notion that the addition of guns would have helped is purely fantastical.

I was using Ft. Hood as an example to the person I was debating as to why singular events cannot be used to make a point (as he was so fond of doing). Sure, I can point to any one event and make it sound like a proof. See the research that I provided to help prove my claim.

Federal tax dollars allocated to the CDC for research cannot be used to study gun violence, per an act of Congress in 1996. The research you see today is limited in scope and cannot fully provide a macro-level scale that would benefit policy makers (thanks NRA). Current studies are mostly inadequate for a few reasons: selective research (NRA & gun lobbies); limited in scope due to scarce resources (most of academia). The research that I have provided from a few bright folks at Harvard, is about as well received as any gun research has ever been.

Thankfully, the CDC is now free to study gun violence with an adequate budget, but sadly, it took 17 years and countless deaths brought to you by the NRA, for this to happen.

mokes310:
I was using Ft. Hood as an example of WHEN there were guns present (MP's and civilian security forces), they were of little use in stopping the rampage from already tragic figures. It does not matter where the guns were, they were still there on those who were allowed to carry them. So the notion that the addition of guns would have helped is purely fantastical.

So your point is that "no guns" is better than "some guns in the right hands"?

Federal tax dollars allocated to the CDC for research cannot be used to study gun violence, per an act of Congress in 1996.

Link it then.

Thankfully, the CDC is now free to study gun violence with an adequate budget, but sadly, it took 17 years and countless deaths brought to you by the NRA, for this to happen.

Playing the blame game does not solve the actual problem of gun violence y'know, it's just childish.

Smagmuck_:

mokes310:
I was using Ft. Hood as an example of WHEN there were guns present (MP's and civilian security forces), they were of little use in stopping the rampage from already tragic figures. It does not matter where the guns were, they were still there on those who were allowed to carry them. So the notion that the addition of guns would have helped is purely fantastical.

So your point is that "no guns" is better than "some guns in the right hands"?

Federal tax dollars allocated to the CDC for research cannot be used to study gun violence, per an act of Congress in 1996.

Link it then.

Thankfully, the CDC is now free to study gun violence with an adequate budget, but sadly, it took 17 years and countless deaths brought to you by the NRA, for this to happen.

Playing the blame game does not solve the actual problem of gun violence y'know, it's just childish.

No. If you had been reading my previous posts, you would have noticed that I was saying that adding more guns to the mix is not the answer. You don't put out a fire by adding gasoline.

http://en.lmgtfy.com/?q=Omnibus+Consolidated+Appropriations+Bill.+HR+3610%2C+Pub+L+No.+104-208.+September+1996.+

Playing the blame game? Really kid? Because the categorical defunding of those who would study these phenomena is no ones fault.

mokes310:
I was using Ft. Hood as an example of WHEN there were guns present (MP's and civilian security forces), they were of little use in stopping the rampage from already tragic figures. It does not matter where the guns were, they were still there on those who were allowed to carry them. So the notion that the addition of guns would have helped is purely fantastical.

I was using Ft. Hood as an example to the person I was debating as to why singular events cannot be used to make a point (as he was so fond of doing). Sure, I can point to any one event and make it sound like a proof. See the research that I provided to help prove my claim.

Federal tax dollars allocated to the CDC for research cannot be used to study gun violence, per an act of Congress in 1996. The research you see today is limited in scope and cannot fully provide a macro-level scale that would benefit policy makers (thanks NRA). Current studies are mostly inadequate for a few reasons: selective research (NRA & gun lobbies); limited in scope due to scarce resources (most of academia). The research that I have provided from a few bright folks at Harvard, is about as well received as any gun research has ever been.

Thankfully, the CDC is now free to study gun violence with an adequate budget, but sadly, it took 17 years and countless deaths brought to you by the NRA, for this to happen.

Ft. Hood remains a bad example as there were no MPs or Police Officers at the scene of the shooting, they had to respond after shots were fired. This makes it little different from other shootings in areas where no one except Police are allowed to carry weapons as it leaves numerous individuals vulnerable to a shooter. As it stands I can give you plenty of cases where it was civilians who stopped a shooter and not police. In many if not most of these cases they take place in areas where no one is allowed to legally carry a firearm and civilians are forced to try and close with a shooter to disarm him. If you can show me a case where a armed civilian made a situation worse I'd be happy to see it.

mokes310:
No. If you had been reading my previous posts, you would have noticed that I was saying that adding more guns to the mix is not the answer. You don't put out a fire by adding gasoline.

You can also fight fire with fire.

snip

So a budget bill?

Playing the blame game? Really kid? Because the categorical defunding of those who would study these phenomena is no ones fault.

But you're constantly blaming the NRA for gun violence.

Smagmuck_:

mokes310:
No. If you had been reading my previous posts, you would have noticed that I was saying that adding more guns to the mix is not the answer. You don't put out a fire by adding gasoline.

You can also fight fire with fire.

snip

So a budget bill?

Playing the blame game? Really kid? Because the categorical defunding of those who would study these phenomena is no ones fault.

But you're constantly blaming the NRA for gun violence.

This is the last I'm writing on this, because I'm just exhausted debating under 20's who know everything.

My ORIGINAL point, way back when, long before my words were "snipped," was that adding guns to an already chaotic situation, like a mass shooting, is a poor decision because you cannot account for the actions of the vigilante. Answer these questions:

In a mass shooting, if a person fires upon the aggressor in self-defense and kills another innocent bystander, who is at fault?
If during the act of the defense incident, chaos and panic increases due to the ensuing firefight, is the secondary aggressor, i.e., defender, now liable for the escalation of tensions?
If additional people die because of the escalation in tensions, is said defender now complicit in murder?

With regards to the budget bill; it's how your government operates. You could learn quite a bit by reading them.

Ask yourself this final question: Who is at the forefront in the prevention of gun violence research, gun control efforts, the primary actor in the prevention of implication of private gun sales background checks, etc, etc, etc? Guess who? The NRA. If that doesn't make them at fault, then they are at least complicit and culpable.

mokes310:
This is the last I'm writing on this, because I'm just exhausted debating under 20's who know everything.

Age=/=Knowledge

But I'm going to end this right here because you resorted to ad hominem. :)

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 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