I shot my 'first' gun when I was 9 years old while in the boy scouts. Gun Culture is in my blood. You sound so intolerant and closed minded. Perhaps you should visit a firing range someday and see what that culture is really about instead of basing your opinions on ignorance.
I know plenty about guns without having seen them. We own several. We simply don't keep them in the house. Maybe you should just as equally consider looking on the other side, because America is a huge joke with the amount of guns and gun violence running rampant down there.
Mercury-CroweFeatured By OwnerDec 31, 2012Professional Artisan Crafter
I don't really have a problem with weapons. I have a problem with weapons in the hands of people who shouldn't have them, because they (the person) is dangerous. But I'm pretty sure most people feel that way.
The only real issue I have with guns at ALL is 'swift immediate justice' when it isn't needed. That is, shooting someone you THINK is a threat who actually isn't. People don't always act rationally. Yeah, it's one thing to shoot the guy with gun who is killing kids at your school, totally a different story to shoot some kid walking down the street because you 'felt threatened'.
That's the whole reason we have the justice system, to avoid killing or punishing (more) innocent people.
But I'm sure when you look at it as a total, the number of people who are wrongly shot and KILLED is probably pretty low.
Paranoid people don't need guns. They need....I dunno. Phasers that never go above 'stun'. Yeah.
I'm down with having an armed security guard at a school. I mean, hell, there's always an officer hanging out at my daughters elementary school. And most of the high schools around here have either armed security or police that are paid to be there.
I don't think teachers need loaded weapons in their desk, but I'm fine with SOMEONE armed. I'm fine with teachers keeping non-lethal weapons or SOME of them having working firearms.
I don't think all of them should have firearms, but really that's more of a self control and control of the class thing, I know some kids that would make me want to shoot them in the face sometimes.
At my high school, half the kids had hunting rifles in their trucks all the time. I didn't worry about them OR the safety of the school (though of course someone would have had to sneak out into the parking lot to get them if there was an emergency).
"I don't really have a problem with weapons. I have a problem with weapons in the hands of people who shouldn't have them, because they (the person) is dangerous. But I'm pretty sure most people feel that way."
That is what background checks are for. As long as the handlers are properly vetted through the concealed carry permit process there should not be problems.
The point is someone should have the means to defend themselves. No single entity should have a monopoly on the power of safety. If an authority figure starts killing people the answer is to shoot back and defend yourself. The plan of arming teachers is still the most sensible and reasonable solution in every one of those situations you linked.
While self defence it is a tempting option as it strongly appeals to our sense of justice, imagine what would have happened, for example, at Kent State if students were actually armed and firing back. It's thought that one reason for initiating gunfire was a mistaken belief on the part of the guardsmen that there was an armed sniper firing on them. (This from Wikipedia's article): The Adjutant General of the Ohio National Guard told reporters that a sniper had fired on the guardsmen, which itself remains a debated allegation. Many guardsmen later testified that they were in fear for their lives, which was questioned partly because of the distance between them and the students killed or wounded. Time magazine later concluded that "triggers were not pulled accidentally at Kent State." The President's Commission on Campus Unrest avoided probing the question of why the shootings happened. Instead, it harshly criticized both the protesters and the Guardsmen, but it concluded that "the indiscriminate firing of rifles into a crowd of students and the deaths that followed were unnecessary, unwarranted, and inexcusable.
People who aren't regularly trained in or exposed to high-adrenaline, life-threatening situations (especially those that threaten multiple lives, including young children) may not react timely enough and accurately enough to defend themselves or others. Just a thought to put out there. I can see why people might think it's good to have people be armed, but I think there's a difference between a classroom break-in and a home break-in.
In these home break-in cases, gun self-defense may have worked for several reasons a gun-wielding teacher might not work as well. Perhaps it's because the home has more room for the defender to hide and prepare, the home has more ground for the criminal to cover, or the defender is more used to his home than the criminal is.
This the proverbial "band-aid on the shotgun wound" solution. Sticking guns in schools isn't going to stop things like this from happening. If you want to stop this sort of thing from happening, invest in social services. Invest in the mental health professionals who help diagnose and treat mental illness properly. Invest in science to help improve treatments so that people struggling with mental illness can live normal lives as much as possible. Invest in education. Reduce the class sizes so that the teachers don't get so burned out on having to wrangle fifty or a hundred kids that they don't notice when their students are struggling. Invest in building communities so that parents have resources they can access to help their kids, rather than just trying to manage them. Invest in support networks so that kids like Woodham and Lanza and Harris and Clebold and so many others don't feel like they're all alone in the world.
Or you can just take the easy route and put a gun in every classroom and wait for the sad statistics to come up and baffle you as to why your band-aid fix didn't work.
The NRA is a paper tiger. After this last election and how poorly the campaigns they contributed to performed, I don't honestly see why anyone would be fearful of what the NRA has to say on anything. As the lawmakers who generally support the NRA come up for re-election in the mid-terms realize that gun rights aren't a popular issue, the NRA will have to modify its stances if they want to remain relevant.
The lawmakers have to stay in office to have influence. With the relevance of the NRA's support dwindling and people's emotions demanding a different approach to guns, it wouldn't be too surprising to me to see lawmakers start taking a stronger anti-gun stance, at least through the next election cycle.
there's another story where a 14-year-old boy was at home with his younger siblings. a guy broke into the home. the 14-year-old shot the guy, and protected the kids.
and also, on the same day of the newtown shooting, there was a gunman in a hospital in alabama (i think) he wounded a couple of people, i think, but police were there and they shot him and that stopped him.
and there are other stories. i think the reason why so many people don't realize that guns can prevent mass killings is that when guns HAVE prevented mass killings, the incidents are not big news because hardly anyone was hurt!! so people aren't aware.
to be honest, i'm conservative but even i didn't use to realize that there are incidents where guns saved people. i actually used to be liberal-leaning about guns. then i learned more about the issue and i slowly realized why conservatives are so adamant about having guns. it took me a while to realize.
THIS JUST IN Columbine had armed security guards and they even exchanged fire with the shooters, armed guards didn't prevent what was then the deadliest school shooting. Only people that have never been in live fire combat think that more guns are the solution. You have no idea how disorienting a shooting is, especially in an urban, densely populated setting.
look up european gun laws you'll find some good deterients for gun possession there
like this one:
Let’s take the example of France. To obtain such a license, people have to practice shooting during at least six months in a club of the official French Federation of Shooting. After the Federation has given its favorable opinion, the police investigate on criminal or mental records. If the police do not find anything, they give an authorization valid for five years. The owner must then buy his gun in a limited period of three months if he doesn’t want his authorization to expire. There is also a limitation regarding the number: a maximum of twelve guns can be detained, while in Norway, such restriction does not exist. Since the French law of 1995, it is nowadays compulsory to keep guns into a locked safe.
In France, Norway and the UK, the right to private gun ownership is not guaranteed by the Constitution. Moreover, in each country, sale of guns and firearms must be registered and recorded.
In case of illicit possession of firearms, the maximum penalty will be seven years prison and a fine in France while in Norway the maximum penalty would only be 3 months.
There's multiple people, each one well trained and some of the best guards there are, all protecting one or two people at once, with support immediately nearby. Nothing remotely close to that could be done regular people.
I put up the link to show that yes, armed resistance has stopped mass shootings before. And frankly, it should be clear by now that shooters prefer disarmed victims (compare the number of shootings at so called "gun free zones" compared to places like police stations, shooting ranges and gun shows, and note that most shooters tend to flee confrontation when the police (ie, armed opposition) arrive), so I think it can be said that the lack of school shootings in Texas is because there are armed faculty in them.
Having a gun in your car is not the same as being armed. If he was shot on the way to his car, what then? He should be allowed to keep a gun in his office, rather than just in his car. I am highly against arming teachers but I am all for teachers being allowed to store a handgun in their office.
Correct a gun in the car is not the same as being armed. If he had the gun on him he would have been able to stop the killer sooner. That is the point Joel Myrick the hero of Pearl Mississippi is actually trying to make.
Oh, okay, I see. I focused on the wrong person. But yeah, I really think it's a stupid idea to arm teachers but I also think it's kind of stupid to not allow them to have a gun in their office or something.
Anyone else concerned about arming educators, when we keep running into pedophiles in school and we want to give them guns around our children... Wait didn't Virgina Tech, and Columbine have armed guards on campus?? Those "Good Guys With Guns" didn't seem to help.
Pedophiles shouldn't be in the teaching profession at all. In fact it is against the law for any sex offender to be within 1000ft of a school.
Having an armed guard is not the same thing as teachers with guns. Don't think Columbine had any guards either way. It is not practical to have guards in every school. If you read the original article it says Arizona had to cut back on its school guard program due to lack of funds. The sensible solution is arming the teachers. By that I mean legitimate teachers not pedophiles. [link]
Bottom line is if an educator can be trusted to look after dozens of children they can be trusted with a gun.
Mercury-CroweFeatured By OwnerDec 31, 2012Professional Artisan Crafter
It's only illegal if they get caught. You can LOVE kids all you want, you just can't ever have been caught doing it.
Giving a teacher the ability to kill your kid with the pull of a trigger isn't exactly 'safe'. Teachers snap, too. Right now, if they do it and hit a kid they get fired and maybe never teach again- with a gun, they snap, and your kid is DEAD.
I trust the teachers to look after my kid at school. But I wouldn't throw my kid in a car with one and just let them drive away.
Well not all people who victimize children are caught. I know for instance our highschool biology teacher got caught molesting boys in my grade. We didn't know it was a problem before or that he had those tendencies, so how do can you even begin to tell if an educator is some one who may use their influence to abuse children, now giving that person a gun.....
I don't believe teachers should have a gun or any other weapon. Personally I believe we do need some type of protection, but it needs to be from local citizens who are trained and educated, their qualifications should be on the same level as military service. I expect educators to teach not worry about how to protect our children. That is our job as a society. They should know when they go into a class, and when we send our kids off to school that we as a society have done everything to protect thee safety and education of our kids so they can grow up to be functioning members of society.
Okay I am sorry, but I know many teachers and educators who should not be trusted with a gun. We have educators who vindictively go after students at times because of personal grievances. I had my senior year math teacher fail me by .4% because he believed I cheated on the final. I took it 3 more times and aced it all times, yet against the faculty and my parents he still failed me to make a point. Not every teacher is the same just like every person. So to make a broad statement that well if you look after dozens of people that should be a reason to be allowed to carry a firearm. Let's start arming bus drivers, taxis, managers at private business, actually u would have to license anyone who oversaw a certain number of people for their "protection".