Teachers and Proffesors should be allowed to bring guns to schools

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT
 

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.

I know it is, since I intended it as irony. I did not intend for it to be anything other than a bit of parody on the kind of jingoistic arguments I sometimes hear in favor of arming the government. Sorry if that offended you.

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

Yeah, don't do that. I get annoyed and call out xDarc whenever he does it, I'm going to call you out, too. That's not an argument and certainly not helpful. At best it's irrelevant, at worst it's distracting from the actual points you're trying to make and in all cases it's uncalled for.

TheLycanKing144:
snip

I couldn't agree more with you. Guns are a tool. They can be (and should be) used to defend and prevent massacres. Banning them would simply put innocent children at risk.
image
wall of images below


I don't understand what people are thinking when they say that gun control is the answer.

HecticAdlay:
snip

If guns are an instant cure-all for shootings , then why was the presence of armed police unable to prevent the Columbine shootings?

Knight Templar:

HecticAdlay:
snip

If guns are an instant cure-all for shootings , then why was the presence of armed police unable to prevent the Columbine shootings?

I said it was a deterrent, not a cure. Imagine if the armed police had not been there. Imagine how many more people would have died. Now imagine if the teachers could have defended themselves. They were shot like fish in a barrel.

HecticAdlay:

Knight Templar:

HecticAdlay:
snip

If guns are an instant cure-all for shootings , then why was the presence of armed police unable to prevent the Columbine shootings?

I said it was a deterrent, not a cure.

Actually you said they prevent massacres, and your use of images implied it was a cure-all. Assuming you you did mean that however, it's evidently not a very strong deterrent.
There is a entire police department on the Virginia Tech campus for example.

Imagine if the armed police had not been there. Imagine how many more people would have died.

Likely none because the police were not effective in stopping the killers at all.

I say that guns should be allowed everywhere because a man who know Karate can be just as deadly as a gun, yet where not banning karate.

Knight Templar:

Likely none because the police were not effective in stopping the killers at all.

Which is why arming the school caucus would be effective. QED.

HecticAdlay:

Knight Templar:

Likely none because the police were not effective in stopping the killers at all.

Which is why arming the school caucus would be effective. QED.

That doesn't logically follow.

Knight Templar:

HecticAdlay:

Knight Templar:

Likely none because the police were not effective in stopping the killers at all.

Which is why arming the school caucus would be effective. QED.

That doesn't logically follow.

How? Please elaborate? In my first post I addressed why guns are a) Useful and b) Would improve security on campus and grounds. People should have a right to defend themselves and not have to rely on police, that was what I was trying to prove. Imagine you are a gunman, do you attack the school where most teachers have guns and could kill you just as easily as you could kill them, or do you attack the defenceless school, where the children will cower in fear as the are mowed down and wait for the police to arrive. It really isn't that hard to understand.

HecticAdlay:

How?

Because you are suggesting people with less training and a lower readiness are better at the given task, else you are trying to use an example of your idea not working, as an argument for it working.
In short, you have utterly failed to make an argument supporting your position.

In my first post I addressed why guns are a) Useful and b) Would improve security on campus and grounds.

No you didn't.
You stated that guns would be a solution for these shootings, and have since failed to explain why if they are a solution then we see them clearly not working.

People should have a right to defend themselves and not have to rely on police, that was what I was trying to prove.

You were not doing that, you are still not doing that unless you are saying children should also carry guns.

Imagine you are a gunman, do you attack...

I attack whichever school I have my issues with, the presence of guns or not isn't that large a factor.

So we have turned schools into an accident/incidents waiting to happen and with no clear benefit.

Knight Templar:
snip

What I am suggesting is that people are less inclined to attack places with guns then places without. It really isn't that complicated. Millions of years of evolution should have made this clear. Why take the risk? I also said that providing more guns to trusted individuals would be far safer then the alternatives. It is the option that has the most potential with the least cost. What I do not understand is why you don't want these people to be able to defend themselves. Statistics have proven(See the pictures in my post) that less people die when a civilian with a concealed weapon intervenes, then waiting for the police to arrive. If you were to attack a school, certainly you would want to inflict as much havoc as possible, why would you want to fail? You would want as many casualties as possible, another rhetorical would be if you were a thief and there were two identical houses. Except one of them has "Gun free home, completely defenceless! Come and take it!" and the other has "Gun owner and proud, intruders will be shot on sight." The answer is pretty clear. You seem to put all your faith into the police and not enough on the people.

HecticAdlay:

What I do not understand is why you don't want these people to be able to defend themselves.

Oh, it's just a little plot of us nazicommieliberals to take over the world. Nothing out of the ordinary, really. You know, the sky is blue, fish swim, birds fly, liberals want the freedoms oppressed and lives endangered...

HecticAdlay:
The answer is pretty clear. You seem to put all your faith into the police and not enough on the people.

If you're supposed to be representative of "the people", I think I have a damn good reason not to put any faith in "the people". Because I wouldn't trust you with a gun any further than I could throw you.

Hell I thought even NRA had a rule along the lines "Never point your gun at anything unless you're willing to accept the legal, physical and moral ramifications of pulling the trigger." You don't use a weapon for intimidation or to make someone "back off". If you're a responsible user, that is. Cause, if you point your weapon at someone, guess what, you just legally empowered THEM to take you down in self-defense (you're pointing a firearm at them, so you're a clear and present threat to their life)...so you damn well better be willing to kill them, consequences and all, if you whipped your gun out.

Oh and by the way, nobody answered the question of how your self-defense overrides the right to not be shot of those people who happen to be between the other guy and yourself, what with bullets flying both ways now.

Now 'scuse me, I think I'll go stare down my cat and see if I win this time.

Then, being the dirty liberal that I am, I'll go back to devising our master plan to take over the world and rob the American people of their freedoms, cause that's what we dirty libruls do apparently.

Vegosiux:
snip

Funny that I didn't mention Liberals in that post. I didn't insinuate anything nor did I analyse it for you, what is the catch with you thinking I was blaming the liberals? I was specifically talking about his opinion and why mine is superior, not his political affiliation. And your point about the killer being intimidated by guns that aren't pointed at him(or her) specifically. The guns that will be at the school will be a reminder that the school can fight back if need be. You seem to have gotten the roles a bit messed up, it is the attacker that will be firing the first shot, it will be the school that acts in self defence. I don't know about you but I am willing to kill to save my life and others. Your point about peoples rights not to be shot is extremely flawed as a) They would be shot anyway if the caucus did not have arms b)There will always be casualties and most controversially c) The fact that they have no natural rights to live, only legal. The killer doesn't care about the law, neither does fate care about their life.

HecticAdlay:

Knight Templar:
snip

Statistics have proven(See the pictures in my post) that less people die when a civilian with a concealed weapon intervenes, then waiting for the police to arrive.

Citation needed. "Statistics have proven" is not a substitute for a credible url link. Not to mention that some studies show correlations between handgun ownership and violent crimes and that carrying a weapon diminishes the thought processes necessary to evaluate a scenario.

Also, the Giffords shooting, where there were people with a concealed carry, seems to refute the very premise of your argument. The shooting occurred in an environment where there was no weapons ban in place, while there was a concealed weapon holder on the premises. The suspect still was able to kill 11 people and the weapon holder wasn't even able to fire a shot before he was subdued by the crowd (indeed, he first drew on someone who wasn't the shooter and nearly shot them instead).

HecticAdlay:

Knight Templar:
snip

What I am suggesting is that people are less inclined to attack places with guns then places without.

True or not, that is irrelevant.

Millions of years of evolution should have made this clear.

No they have not. Guns have not existed that long.

I also said that providing more guns to trusted individuals would be far safer then the alternatives.

No you didn't, and even if you did, so what?

It is the option that has the most potential with the least cost.

You have failed to show it has much potential at all.

See the pictures in my post

No.
Including images, info-graphs and videos is acceptable to a point. But you cannot use them as substitute for making a post and putting effort into the discussion.
I'm not saying I didn't read your image dump, but I will disregard your references to it.

But this is all a bit off topic, talking about people being robbed is another issue really.

If you were to attack a school, certainly you would want to inflict as much havoc as possible, why would you want to fail?

Fail? I don't think this is a situation where one has clear or uniform win-states.
If I were to attack a school, I'd likely be killing myself or wanting to be killed, either way the threat of death isn't something that will deter me.

rhetorical would be if you were a thief and there were two identical houses. Except one of them has "Gun free home, completely defenceless! Come and take it!" and the other has "Gun owner and proud, intruders will be shot on sight."

I'd rob them both, but I wouldn't go in while either was home. I want to rob them, and you don't need a gun to stop me from doing that. Not that any of that matters, entirely different situation.

HecticAdlay:

Funny that I didn't mention Liberals in that post. I didn't insinuate anything nor did I analyse it for you, what is the catch with you thinking I was blaming the liberals?

Not in that post, but since I was replying to you for the first time in this thread, I of course made references to your other posts. Including the propaganda spam one. And, well, as others have noted, you've not "proven" anything, and just saying you did while saying "my opinion is clearly superior"...ah well, I don't see much discussion value here.

You know, I think I'll go back to staring down my cat, or playing with sock puppets or something. Maybe even a chess game with a fowl opponent. But I think I'll go with the cat. I -almost- had the lil' rascal earlier.

HecticAdlay:

What I am suggesting is that people are less inclined to attack places with guns then places without.

Sane people, sure. But people who cause mass shootings generally aren't that sane.

Also, there are other ways to deter attacking gunmen. I propose we put dogs in every school :D

It really isn't that complicated.

Actually, the issue is far more complicated then you give it credit for. Having guns doesn't guarantee that a place won't be attacked, and not having guns doesn't guarantee it will be attacked. If an attack does happen and the victims aren't armed, then more of them may be killed by the attacker. Or if the victims are armed, the resulting firefight could be what ups the death count. It could be that the attacker pulls his gun, iss about to chicken out, and then somebody else takes a shot at him and misses, and then that causes the firefight.

There is no easy solution.

What I do not understand is why you don't want these people to be able to defend themselves. Statistics have proven(See the pictures in my post) that less people die when a civilian with a concealed weapon intervenes, then waiting for the police to arriveIf you were to attack a school, certainly you would want to inflict as much havoc as possible

First, I'd like to point out that the odds of a school in the US ever being attacked is around 1%, including instances where the shooter didn't kill anyone. So the idea of people in schools needing guns to "defend themselves" is a serious over-reaction. School shootings are tragedies, but also anomoloies.

With that out of the way, you can't possibly have any clue what school shooters are trying to accomplish. Some of them want to cause a bunch of damage. Some may want to kill specific people. Some could be suffering from brain damage and so not have any kind of "plan". Some might want to commit suicide by cop, and so the specific amount of damage they cause is irrelevant. It's impossible to say "school shooters want to do X, so we can counter that by doing Y".

another rhetorical would be if you were a thief and there were two identical houses. Except one of them has "Gun free home, completely defenceless! Come and take it!" and the other has "Gun owner and proud, intruders will be shot on sight." The answer is pretty clear. You seem to put all your faith into the police and not enough on the people.

Guns aren't the only deterrent to crime. Dogs, alarm systems, good lighting around your property, and well-secured locks on doors and windows are all things that can turn away a potential thief.

Vegosiux:

HecticAdlay:
The answer is pretty clear. You seem to put all your faith into the police and not enough on the people.

Hell I thought even NRA had a rule along the lines "Never point your gun at anything unless you're willing to accept the legal, physical and moral ramifications of pulling the trigger." You don't use a weapon for intimidation or to make someone "back off". If you're a responsible user, that is. Cause, if you point your weapon at someone, guess what, you just legally empowered THEM to take you down in self-defense (you're pointing a firearm at them, so you're a clear and present threat to their life)...so you damn well better be willing to kill them, consequences and all, if you whipped your gun out.

Actually, you do use a weapon to intimidate or make someone "back off." Its the most common useage of firearms in self defense. Someone tries to rob you, you pull out the gun, the crook says "Alright, be cool man!", you call the cops, crook goes to jail. Thats what happens most of the time, and rarely do people ever get shot over it (although that did happen in the next town over where a farmer used a rifle to shot one robber [who survived], and force the other to surrender until the sheriff showed up). Of course, if they DONT back down and try to attack you, then you shoot.

Luckily, Kansas answered that for you. If you are on your own private property, then the one who attacks you loses the right to self defense because they attacked YOU on your property (and Castle Doctorine/Stand Your Ground says you can only RETURN fire, not fire first. Using a gun for intimidation is fine though, as long as you believe they are a threat). If you are out in public, same deal. You can ONLY return fire, not shoot first. And in all of these cases, YOU are on the defense, never the offense. If you DO start the attack, then you will go to jail.

HecticAdlay:

TheLycanKing144:
snip

I couldn't agree more with you. Guns are a tool. They can be (and should be) used to defend and prevent massacres. Banning them would simply put innocent children at risk.
image
wall of images below


I don't understand what people are thinking when they say that gun control is the answer.

This is the most informative and well honest post in this thread, you arugued with facts, you win the internet sir, good job! Sucks you got banned though.

Jux:

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.

Just the facts:
Guns in Switzerland: Facts, Figures and Firearm Law
www.gunpolicy.org Regions Europe Western Europe

Sorry, but wikipedia is not a reliable source.

EDIT:My links don't always work on this site for some reason. I will try to fix it.

TheLycanKing144:

Jux:

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.

Just the facts:
Guns in Switzerland: Facts, Figures and Firearm Law
www.gunpolicy.org Regions Europe Western Europe

Sorry, but wikipedia is not a reliable source.

EDIT:My links don't always work on this site for some reason. I will try to fix it.

Tip: use the [ url= ] [ /url ] tags to link rather than a link dump. (use "quote" to see my examples below)

Also: Under regulation, almost all weapons require a licence that must be renewed every 5 years except "some 'manual repetition rifles' for sport and hunting" (however, ammunition requires a licence) and their background checks cover mental health, criminal backgrounds, and Domestic violence records. Records of ownership of all private firearms are maintained by the government and private sales are banned. Sales are limited to 1 weapon per licence holder. Concealed weapons are allowed only under specific circumstances involving a tangible danger and requires a full mental health check and police training.

All of the above is policy that the US does not have. As noted before, many of those policies are actively opposed by the gun lobby in the US. Comparatively, the homicide rate in the US is 5.1 as to Switzerland's 0.70.

It should be noted that the site only shows raw data for these statistics, with no adjustments to account for other variables. It should also be noted that the site, supposedly hosted by the University of Sydney School of Public Health, is not mentioned anywhere on the university's site nor can be found via a search.

TheLycanKing144:

Jux:

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.

Just the facts:
Guns in Switzerland: Facts, Figures and Firearm Law
www.gunpolicy.org Regions Europe Western Europe

Sorry, but wikipedia is not a reliable source.

EDIT:My links don't always work on this site for some reason. I will try to fix it.

Switzerland is quite a bad example to use.

This is why:
1st: it has a very strong economy and doesn't face the same socio-economic and emigration issues as many western countries like Belgium, the UK and France.
And secondly, to top it off if you compare the gun homicide rates of Switzerland and Belgium you'll notice that despite Belgium having an environment which should have a higher rate scores better every single year but 1994. And the same goes for France, The Netherlands, Germany and the UK.

You know, there's a reason they dont haappen at police stations and gun stores. Its because the people there are generally very well equipped, easily out number you, are assumed to have better training, can handle a high pressure sitation like that because they're trained and have that mindset, and have more than enough fire power than whatever youre packing generally. BUt hey yu know what else could stop it, just give everyone a gun. with everyone carrying no one would think to shoot anyone for fear they'd be killed. I mean obviously/sarcasm.

School shootings are not as common as people think. take every school in the US and compare those to the number that actually had a shooting. Yes, its sad that they happen, but that is just the way the world is. I dont think guns in school will discourage someone from going on a shooting, it will only encourage them to be sneakier (sniper rifles/long distance guns froma concealed condition like in Kent State frmo the clock tower).

Let me put it this way. Say the guys at columbine. they walked in to school, set duffle bags down with explosives and then took a positions and began to open fire. With the right weapons (say the (EDIT) semi-automatic type like an AR-15) even by the time teachers arrive to shoot (which you dont know if tehy even will be able to, its easy to say you can train someone too, but if they're not in that frame of mind they are less likely to shoot and more likely to panic, causing a danger to themselves and those they're charged to protect) several students can be killed and/or seriously/fatally injured. And yes you can say, well it will stop more form being killed cause then you dont have to wait for police, and while thats true, I dont think thats consolation to the parents/families who lose someone already. They key is prevention, not reaction. reach out to youths who seem troubled but not single them out. its not going to stop every shooter, but it could lower the numbers (and i know not every shooter shows clear signs ahead of time that they'll do this and for the most part the big shootings in the US the perpetrator didnt seem like the type of person to do so [columbine shooters, DC sniper, Aurora Theatre shooter, Virginia tech shooter, the guy who shot the amish girls]).

besides, I can honestly say I wouldnt feel comfortable with guns in school if I were a student (if my university said go ahead I'd feel extremely uncomfortable). Teaching can be a stressful job, and having a gun now gives teachers access to a weapon and make a threat students would never expect if they snap. yes, that doesnt happen often, but neither do school/public shootings in general. Not to mention any students who get ahold of the keys and decide they now have the power and want to do something like that. Again, youd think teachers would be competent enough, but we all know teachers who are just bad at their jobs and/or a bit spacy. it wasnt uncommon in my school for a student to find a certain teacher's keys/answer sheets/notes/etc because they left them out and forgot and left the room. I'm quite sure he would have left keys to a gun case on school property I could have taken, and being one of the more honor students I could have figured a way to have that room empty and enter without raising much suspicion (since wheny ou were on the honor student level I was you generally could leave class if you wanted as long as you didnt do anyhting that was disruptive or leave school without telling anyone once you were 16-18). and I know the kids smarter than I ould have easily done it too, because when i was in high school virginia tech happened and this was a big topic around the school and students often joked around saying the nerds would hold the power because we had such liberties and trust from the staff.

emeraldrafael:
With the right weapons (say the automatic type like an AR-15)

Semi-automatic.

Mind you, it's often called an assault rifle, which would require it to be capable of automatic fire, but that's wrong.

thaluikhain:

emeraldrafael:
With the right weapons (say the automatic type like an AR-15)

Semi-automatic.

Mind you, it's often called an assault rifle, which would require it to be capable of automatic fire, but that's wrong.

Right, I should know that, thanks sorry I'll edit that. But the rest of my point still stands.

emeraldrafael:
But the rest of my point still stands.

More or less, yeah.

I'd also say that there's no point coming up with something that will make schools safer now, if it doesn't still work in 6 months. School shootings always happen somewhere else, until they happen to your school. After 6 months of no shootings, people will lose interest and go back to what they were doing. Maybe the odd wakeup call for a bit whenever there is a shooting somewhere else, or a normal murder locally.

emeraldrafael:

besides, I can honestly say I wouldnt feel comfortable with guns in school if I were a student (if my university said go ahead I'd feel extremely uncomfortable).

Maybe its just something you get used to. I live in a very gun rich enviornment (rural Kansas), so guns are a common thing around here. Now, the school I went to was in a city of 50,000 and had very little guns, there was a school down the road that you may not like. It was in a rural area, and was shared by about 3-4 cities too small for thier own school. And during deer season, its not uncommon to see students show up at the school in their camoflauge or orange hunting gear with thier rifles hanging on the gun-rack in their pickup trucks. To people not from here, most likely the scariest thing you will ever see and they will likely take off running and calling the sheriff (who will then laugh because "Hes got a gun!" means nothing unless its followed by "And hes shooting people!!"). To people who live around here, it's just Tuesday.

BOOM headshot65:

emeraldrafael:

besides, I can honestly say I wouldnt feel comfortable with guns in school if I were a student (if my university said go ahead I'd feel extremely uncomfortable).

Maybe its just something you get used to. I live in a very gun rich enviornment (rural Kansas), so guns are a common thing around here. Now, the school I went to was in a city of 50,000 and had very little guns, there was a school down the road that you may not like. It was in a rural area, and was shared by about 3-4 cities too small for thier own school. And during deer season, its not uncommon to see students show up at the school in their camoflauge or orange hunting gear with thier rifles hanging on the gun-rack in their pickup trucks. To people not from here, most likely the scariest thing you will ever see and they will likely take off running and calling the sheriff (who will then laugh because "Hes got a gun!" means nothing unless its followed by "And hes shooting people!!"). To people who live around here, it's just Tuesday.

I live in western PA near pittsburgh. If you know anyhitng about the area, you know its huge with avid hunters because of the Ohio Valley. So I'm used to the idea of growing up in a gun rich area and with people who have guns. So Im used to see students show up in hunting gear, and I'm used to the idea that they may have a rifle in the car (i dont agree with it, but I'm used to it.

What i dont agree with and am not used to (nor do I think i'll ever be) is the idea that tehy can bring INTO school. or that there is a need to arm teachers when (at least at my school) we had a security gaurd of sorts and police are around. Maybe Id feel slightly different if a shcool shooting happened where I live and I lived through, but i dont think so. I just dont see the need and it doesnt inspire the idea of "oh yeah, our school is safe. why? cause the teachers are packing heat).

TheLycanKing144:
The U.S. has much more lax laws regarding firearms than the swiss in many areas.
Just the facts:
Guns in Switzerland: Facts, Figures and Firearm Law
www.gunpolicy.org Regions Europe Western Europe

Sorry, but wikipedia is not a reliable source.

EDIT:My links don't always work on this site for some reason. I will try to fix it.

http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/switzerland

Under Gun Regulation: Firearm Regulation - Guiding Policy

The regulation of guns in Switzerland is categorised as restrictive.

And, how 'restrictive' is qualified: http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/citation/quotes/22

Another approach to firearms control is restrictive licensing. Under such a system a person seeking to buy a firearm, typically a handgun, must provide the licensing authority with evidence of good character and have a valid reason why he needs the firearm.

In restrictive licensing, the presumption used in permissive systems is reversed: the applicant must give a sufficient reason for allowing him to have a gun rather than the licensing authority being required to show a reason for denying the request. Instead of saying "all but..." members of the prohibited classes may possess firearms, the restrictive system provides that "nobody but..." those who are specifically approved may possess the firearms covered by the system.

Restrictive licensing attempts to reduce firearms violence by substantially reducing the number of firearms in circulation...

Huh, fancy that.... maybe you should read your sources? Nothing I saw on wiki was contradicted by your source.

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.

I wonder if you've ever looked at at the data for British gun crime. I suspect you have not.

Kaulen Fuhs:

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.

I wonder if you've ever looked at at the data for British gun crime. I suspect you have not.

Its very low, this is because the UK historically had a very small amount of both guns and crime. Add to that a majority of the former being confiscated at one point or another by the government you are obviously going to have very few guns. This is easy to maintain for the UK because they have a fairly small domestic firearms industry and the UK is on an island and is by it's nature easier to keep things out. Its a very different matter for the US with out massive land borders and unstable southern neighbor.

As for crime I find it odd that people always point to the UK as so much better. I suppose its because they have almost no guns but its rather ridiculous. The UK's crime rate is at least comparable to the US and has risen over the past few decades to being the highest crime rate in Europe. If it was a question of more guns mean less or more crime then you wouldn't have countries like Switzerland and Norway having much lower crime rates despite being absolutely lousy with guns as compared to the UK.

Its not about guns, its about culture and economics.

I guess i would be sorely tempted on several occasions: This is a .44 Magnum, the most powerful handgun in the world, and would blow your head clean off, you've got to ask yourself one question: "Did you do your homework?" Well, did ya, punk?

Sorry but i would highly doubt the intellectual integrity of every teacher and prof. who would advocate this nonsense. Nevertheless i wouldn't be suprised if this thing actually happened somewhere in the US...

Jesus.. If someone suggested something like this here in Norway, it would be ridiculed or frowned upon. Even AFTER the 2011 shootings.

But if you wanna try to extinguish your fires with gasoline, go ahead.

Only if all the kids are allowed guns as well

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked