jump to last post 1-15 of 15 discussions (78 posts)

If you could, would you?

  1. profile image0
    JaxsonRaineposted 4 years ago

    There was an account published about the experience of the first police who arrived on-scene at Sandy Hook recently. I'm not going to link to it, I understand there are many who wouldn't want to read it, but I want to ask everyone a question.

    The account confirmed my suspicion about how the events played out. In this circumstance, it wouldn't have made any different if Lanza used a shotgun, rifle, or handguns. The result would have been the same.

    If you could go back to 5 minutes before Lanza showed up and give a weapon to even one of the teachers, to give them a chance, would you? DHS recently recommended that teachers try to fight with scissors in that kind of circumstance. Would you have been willing to give the teacher in that room, who used her body to shield the children, a gun and a chance?

    I would have.

    1. bBerean profile image61
      bBereanposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      + 1

      Very valid and thoughtful question.  Folks need to be honest with themselves, setting aside their political talking points and think about it seriously before answering.

      BTW, never bring scissors to a gunfight.

      1. profile image0
        JaxsonRaineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        That's what our teachers are being told to do... it's unbelievable. If anyone can stomach reading the cops' account, it just goes to show how futile our efforts to shield and protect people are, how useless our existing policies are, and how utterly, utterly twisted some people are.

    2. Dont Taze Me Bro profile image60
      Dont Taze Me Broposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      If I could have, I would have, anyone would have, but this is the real world and the answer to that hypothetical is really meaningless as we shall never be able to go back in time. I understand that your point is if you could go back in time and would give a teacher a gun (who wouldn't?) teachers should therefore have guns. At least you are proposing a solution which could work.
      There is a simpler solution which clearly demonstrates why gun controlaholics, those ideologues behind the decades long push to take guns away from law abiding citizens, aren't interested in protecting the children but simply use that as an excuse to infringe upon the 2nd amendment. Joe Biden said today what they are proposing won't stop another Sandy Hook. If they (and I don't mean the good intentioned people who truly believe outlawing guns will help) thought limiting guns would help then why wouldn't they propose that no one attend, work or volunteer at a school without a background check to see if they own any guns (public information by the way). They could require that anyone with such weapons surrender them for a period of time that includes the time period they work at or attend the school (say a year beyond their graduating or leaving the school). They could also require that mentally ill people not have access to guns in their residence or any place they frequent (like relatives' homes).
      That would have stopped what happened in CT and most other occurrences and would certainly make it much harder to occur again without taking guns away from law abiding citizens. If you have guns and don't want to surrender them simply transfer ownership to a responsible relative who is not affected by the law...For the safety of the children why would anyone involved in education wish to risk anyone having a gun around anyway? But my point is why aren't the gun controlaholics pushing things like this that will work without making guns illegal to own. There are already 9000 laws on the feds books they don't enforce.

    3. MelissaBarrett profile image61
      MelissaBarrettposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Yes Jaxson... I would.

      Now be honest here...

      If you had a day's warning and could go back in time and have the police remove all of the mother's guns would you?

      1. tammybarnette profile image60
        tammybarnetteposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Wow, excellent point MelissaBarrett !

      2. profile image0
        JaxsonRaineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        With her consent, yes.

        The problem is, your question is analogous to gun control laws that wouldn't work. Mine is analogous to laws and policies that could work.

        1. MelissaBarrett profile image61
          MelissaBarrettposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Without her consent.

          I didn't say all the reasons handing the teacher a gun might not have worked.  I love you babe but you are dodging.

          Would you have violated her second amendment rights to take the guns that killed 20 children 24 hours later?

          Yes or no?

          1. profile image0
            JaxsonRaineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Without her consent, no. I'd be fine with the police stationing an officer at her home, but not with violating her second and fourth amendment rights.

            I'm not dodging, I've answered your question. The problem is, your question isn't applicable without hindsight. Mine is.

            We can't just confiscate the guns that people are going to use to murder. We can allow adults to defend themselves though.

            1. MelissaBarrett profile image61
              MelissaBarrettposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Ok... just to clarify... I would wipe my ass with the constitution if it saved 20 children.  If for no other reason than I know what it's like to lose one.

              Just so we know where each other are coming from.

              Now... If you hand someone who has never owned a gun and tell her to shoot the crazy bad guy how many shots do you think it's gonna take?

              Did the armed guard at Columbine make a difference? Really?  Any difference at all?

              Most districts don't have enough money to buy new text books.  Is the NRA going to pay for armed guards or are the already underfunded schools going to take a hit?

              What about the teachers that literally walk off the job from having to work in the same area as a gun?  Are you going to force them to own one?  (I know several teachers who have said they would walk)

              What data do you have to show it would be in the least bit effective?

              What data do you have to show how many accidental shootings would occur from having a gun in the presence of 800 plus students a day?

              What about the parents that would pull their children from school rather than have them in an armed compound?  I would.  I'm sure I'm not nearly alone either.

              What about MY rights as a parent to not have my children exposed to firearms?  Is it the gvmt's right to usurp that?

              I have way more questions when you answer those.

              1. profile image0
                JaxsonRaineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Melissa, your question is 100% inapplicable without hindsight. There is no way to target the guns that are going to be used in a future crime. So no, I wouldn't support violating a citizens' constitutional rights to try and save the lives of children.

                My question is applicable without hindsight. It's something we can do without knowing the future. Do you see the difference?

                As for doing anything to save lives, would you be willing to lock up every civilian, and keep everyone separated from each other for their entire lives, to prevent people from killing each other? After all, that would save tens of thousands of lives every year, much more than just 20 children.

                Would an armed teacher have been able to make a difference? Maybe. There's no way to tell, but civilians are able to shoot and stop bad guys all the time. I'd have to look for it, but the average mass-shooter stopped by police shoots something like 10 people, where the average mass-shooter stopped by a civilian shoots something like 2 people.

                Just because an armed person didn't make a difference in one instance doesn't mean they can't make a difference in another instance, that's completely fallacious reasoning.

                Schools wouldn't even need to pay for anything.

                I have never, ever, encouraged forcing someone to own or use a gun. In case you missed it, I'm absolutely against forcing people to do things.

                For data, I can provide homicide statistics of states over time through gun-law changes. I can provide peer-reviewed studies by criminologists and the Department of Justice. I can provide case studies, articles, videos to review.

                Do you really want to say that there is NO chance that an armed teacher could have made a difference? You really think an armed teacher would have no more chance than she did huddling in the corner of the room with her students?

                If someone wants to pull their kids from school, fine. You don't have a constitutional right to not be around guns though. In your home, on your property, sure. Not in public though.

                1. MelissaBarrett profile image61
                  MelissaBarrettposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Wow... who would pay for the armed guards at each school?

                  My town has 4 police officers and 8 schools.

                  Are you saying that you don't care what parents what their children exposed to... that it's fine to override that?

                  And what about the accidental shootings?  Are you saying that there wont be any?

                  There IS a chance an armed teacher could have made a difference.

                  There IS a chance that if that teacher carried a gun to school each day that one of her students could get their hands on it.

                  There IS a chance that properly enforced gun control laws would work.

                  There IS a chance they could do nothing.

                  There is a chance -aka Columbine- that a security guard would be the first target and would be hiding pissing his pants while his school was shot up.

                  There is a chance that a security guard would be barney flipping fife and shoot a kid accidentally.

                  Teachers would quit.  There are too few to replace them.

                  So hey... how about a compromise?

                  Keep the guns off the school property but hire more police to work the areas around schools?

                  At the same time increase penalties on gun owners who are irresponsible enough to let their crazy ass children have access to them?  Require waiting periods on ALL guns.  Require psych testing on all gun owners.  Charge crimes back to the last legal owner of a gun.  They are charged with negligent homicide for each death on their gun.  Even if the company was the last legal owner. The CEO gets charged.

                  See how the illegal gun trade goes from there.

                  1. profile image0
                    JaxsonRaineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    Nobody has to pay for armed guards. If a district wants to, they can, it's their choice.

                    I'm saying that nobody has the right to 'not be around guns' in public. To the contrary, citizens have the right to keep and bear arms. There's no pleasing everybody, people will always be offended by something. Not our job to try to coddle them.

                    Accidental shootings can happen, which is why I would also encourage gun safety training. I would also encourage crisis response training. If guns are treated properly, they will never accidentally shoot someone.

                    How do you properly enforce gun-control laws? As you said, they don't work. Guards don't even necessarily work. The point is, by having gun-free zones, you are taking away the right that people have to defend themselves. No 'gun-free-zone' policy will work, because criminals and crazies don't care about the rules. Have police working nearby? Great. They'll still be too late to stop horrible things from happening.

                    Just to keep things straight, if someone breaks into your house, steals a knife, and kills someone with it, you're fine with going to prison for that?

    4. profile image0
      Brenda Durhamposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Nope,  probably not (because I don't believe teachers should have to be security guards) but I would have had an armed security guard at the doorway and probably several others on-site.

      And I say "nope" like that, too, because I don't know that it would've saved lives at all.  IF it would've saved lives, then of course I'd have given a teacher a gun.   But we don't know any such thing.

  2. PrettyPanther profile image85
    PrettyPantherposted 4 years ago

    Okay, let's think about this as a real-life scenario.  How would it happen that the gun would be in her hands?  Would she have it in her classroom, where she teaches six-year-olds?  If so, where would she keep it so that it is safe from curious kids?  In a locked cabinet?  Where would she keep the keys?  Would the ammo be kept with the gun or in a separate locked cabinet?  What would she do with the children while she is getting her gun out, loading it, and heading toward a shooting gunman?  While she is doing that, who would be shielding the children from harm?  Who would be helping them hide or escape?  Who would make sure that the children would not be between her and the gunman?  Who would ensure they don't run screaming in multiple directions with no adult to guide them?

    If you can answer these questions to the satisfaction of rational individuals, then I will be truly impressed.

    1. profile image0
      JaxsonRaineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Just as a suggestion, in a locked cabinet, with the key on a keychain clipped to her belt. Or a fingerprint scanner. Basically, in a safe way. Ammo in a magazine with the gun. It would take all of 10 seconds, and the teachers had some warning because Lanza had to shoot his way through the glass in the lobby.

      One of the teachers hid her kids before Lanza came into the room, they hid in cupboards. She could have put them in the cupboards, gotten the gun out, and taken a defensive stance ready to shoot if someone came through the door.

      You seem to be thinking that it's somehow better for the teacher to gather her kids quietly in the corner, be quiet, and wait.

    2. bBerean profile image61
      bBereanposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      If you want me to answer each question individually still, I can, but Jaxson pretty much covered it.

      Two things seem the most befuddling to me.  How people can think there is any practical defense that can be readily available to counter a gunman other than another gun, and why people think gun laws will stop criminals from having guns, (even if you try to take all the guns from the people who would protect themselves and you with them if they could). 

      Stolen gun.  Nutcase.  Gun free zone.  City with existing gun laws.  Nothing to counter the threat.  Disaster.

    3. Credence2 profile image87
      Credence2posted 4 years ago in reply to this

      I am with you PP, this entire thread is utter nonsense. I suppose that we will have a "Clint Eastwood" among each of the rather ordinary people whose job it is to teach 6 year olds.

      The issue here is the element of surprise, any armed assailant has an overwhelming advantage in a situation like Sandy Hook, Columbine, etc.
      All we a proposing here is a society that devolves, and I mean deevolves into nothing more than an armed camp. We just as well have men in fashion with gunbelts and shoulder holsters everywhere and we cannot leave out the women. When does it all stop? 

      The Swiss is an armed society but you don't hear about things like this, will the rightwinger kindly tell me why he or she thinks that is so?

      1. profile image0
        JaxsonRaineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Perhaps you should have read my reply to PP. The teachers had warning.

        If you want to come into this thread and ask me questions, why don't you start by answering mine? If you could give that teacher who used her body as a human shield to protect her students a gun to defend herself and them with, would you? Or would you say 'no, just huddle in the corner and die'?

        1. Credence2 profile image87
          Credence2posted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Yes, Jaxson, under the rather limited scenario you provide, I would rather see the teacher armed than unarmed, if that is what you are looking for. But the issue is far greater than this, why are all rightwingers blind to its implications?

          1. profile image0
            JaxsonRaineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Go ahead and point them out then. You've already admitted that it's better to allow people a chance to defend themselves against bad people.

  3. Mighty Mom profile image91
    Mighty Momposted 4 years ago

    How much good would it do if the armed teacher was the one in the last classroom instead of the first?
    You said arming even one teacher.

    I would hate to see "sharpshooting" as a job requirement of being a teacher.

    1. profile image0
      JaxsonRaineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      I said one of the teachers, referring to the teachers who died trying to protect their students. The context, if you read the rest of what I wrote, is clear on that.

      "Would you have been willing to give the teacher in that room, who used her body to shield the children, a gun and a chance?"

      You're just being difficult for no good reason.

    2. bBerean profile image61
      bBereanposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      They heard what was going on over the PA, and simply because the shots were loud.  There was warning for some, and a little time for a trained, levelheaded person to act.  Not a sure thing, but at least a chance.

      1. profile image0
        JaxsonRaineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        More than that. There was gunfire as Lanza shot the glass to get into the school. Then some time, then more gunshots and the PA system, then some time. At some point we'll get an official report, but there's usually enough time to act. Even a chance at being able to act, rather than waiting the 10 minutes for police to arrive, is better than nothing.

      2. Castlepaloma profile image25
        Castlepalomaposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        I don't understand
        If anyone knew or had a 5 minute forsight of a killer that would be arriving to class.

        Why not?
        RUN!! RUN FOR EVERYONES LIFE!!!

        Unless you are doing a retake for a murder movie

        1. bBerean profile image61
          bBereanposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Your unarmed.  You don't know who is where, or how many are attacking.  Hardly any time to think about it, and viable defense is not an option.  You know you are safe at the moment, so I can see where trying to hide them and wait it out made sense.

  4. knolyourself profile image60
    knolyourselfposted 4 years ago

    My local laundromat guy a long time ago, came out of the back with a 22 rifle to confront some guys rifling his bill changer. They shot him dead. If you have a gun, better be prepared to use it. Don't think he was the type.

    1. profile image0
      JaxsonRaineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      That's not the question at hand, and it's also irrelevant to the situation at Sandy Hook.

    2. bBerean profile image61
      bBereanposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Absolutely agree.

  5. tammybarnette profile image60
    tammybarnetteposted 4 years ago

    First of all I do not want armed teachers. For one I don't think they are paid enough as it is for their work as an educator, too also be expected to be a security guard is really asking a lot..Also, if we armed teachers, let's just picture high school, especially in the large urban areas of New York City...whew, scary thought: teen steals teachers weapons, locks down the school holding hostages with an arsenal of weapons that are conveniently already there..

    I do however see your point Jax, I would have wished for ANYTHING that would have prevented this tragedy.

    1. Castlepaloma profile image25
      Castlepalomaposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Agree

      Since most murders are tooled by a gun, outlaw guns.
      Don't train and equip everyone with a gun or you got High Noon movies happening for real.

      1. bBerean profile image61
        bBereanposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Positively pollyannish to imagine total elimination of guns in America.  Way too many already out there and nobody is letting them go easily.  The more determined you are to take them, the less likely you are to get them.  Even if you did manage to disarm the general, law abiding, populace the black market would still keep the criminals well supplied.  There are plenty of Americans capable of machining their own, if they were told they couldn't have them and the price was right to supply them.

      2. profile image0
        JaxsonRaineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        What about the black market? It's online, you can go buy an illegal gun online.

        You can also make them at home, with a 3d printer. Every year, it will be easier and easier, cheaper and cheaper, to do so.

        You can't take guns away from people who want to get their hands on them anymore than you can keep alcohol or drugs out of their hands.

        1. tsadjatko profile image90
          tsadjatkoposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          So true - they only want to take them from law abiding citizens and therefore turn law abiding citizens into criminals if they dare own them.

        2. Credence2 profile image87
          Credence2posted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Jaxson, I do know why the right has to always present an argument in terms of extremes: we take everybody's guns or we arm everybody 24/7.? The rightwinger is by nature incapable of compromise and coming to reasonable conclusions based upon the facts. I do not want to live in a society where have to pack my gun as well as my wallet to go to the corner grocery store. There is a common sense middle ground which conservatives do a 180 degree Exorcist head turn to avoid examining.

          1. bBerean profile image61
            bBereanposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Do tell.

          2. profile image0
            JaxsonRaineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Maybe you should read what I post then. I have never advocated arming everybody 24/7.

            I am perfectly capable of compromise. Present and defend a logical argument, and I'll not only compromise, but I'll side with you.

            But hey, I think we should repeal the regulation of and ban on new manufacturing of automatic weapons. I also think we should give a free gun to anyone who wants one. I'm sure you don't. But, I'll be willing to compromise and only settle on repealing regulations on automatic weapons. Are you willing to make that compromise?

        3. bBerean profile image61
          bBereanposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Just ran across a relevant article: http://www.foxnews.com/tech/2013/02/13/ … -gun-laws/

  6. bBerean profile image61
    bBereanposted 4 years ago

    Nothing sells guns like the current political climate.  Overheard by a salesperson in the ammo department of a local store, talking to a small line of folks, "We are limiting it to 3 boxes per customer, per visit, to make sure everyone has a chance to get some."  I didn't know there was a shortage, but perhaps they fear there will be, or that taxes will go up on them.  On my way home I pass by a shooting range, whose large parking lot was overflowing into the streets.  Want America to double down and over arm themselves?  Tell them you want to begin eating away at their right to have guns.

    1. tsadjatko profile image90
      tsadjatkoposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Soooo are you telling me JoeBiden is really in the pocket of the NRA and they have everybody fooled? Hmmm maybe he is getting a percent of guns and ammo sold! That Wascallwee NRA! Day worst dan dat wascalwee ole wabbit.

      1. bBerean profile image61
        bBereanposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        If I trusted what they would do with the money I would say the democrats have earned a commission.

      2. Castlepaloma profile image25
        Castlepalomaposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        When America get poorer because most of the rest of the world dislike guns and nuke bullies.

        Let them, eat nukes with a side order of guns..

        1. bBerean profile image61
          bBereanposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          We're getting poorer because of our leadership, not because of guns.

          1. tsadjatko profile image90
            tsadjatkoposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            I don't know about that, I heard a gun stole lunchmoney from a child the other day.

            1. bBerean profile image61
              bBereanposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Their afraid of being taken from their homes so it is understandable they might act out.

          2. Castlepaloma profile image25
            Castlepalomaposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            berean

            In the industrial nations, USA is leading in guns and gun deaths.
            USA also leads world wide in Nuclear threats, 50%  War budget of the total world' budget, Prisons (25%) and increase Carbon foot print on the face of the earth

            Is it wise to increase these negative actions or decrease these negatives?

            1. taburkett profile image61
              taburkettposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              the question is do you want to be safe or sorry?
              if you wish to be safe, then you will continue holding the upper hand.
              otherwise, you will simply begin to be more sorry as each loss of your freedoms occur.

  7. NotPC profile image59
    NotPCposted 4 years ago

    Anyone who wants to keep discussing gun control should join this thread: http://hubpages.com/forum/topic/109075

    No reason to have duplicate threads. The more the merrier!

    1. tsadjatko profile image90
      tsadjatkoposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Take the period out of the link - screws it up.

      1. NotPC profile image59
        NotPCposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Good call. Thank you!

  8. Mighty Mom profile image91
    Mighty Momposted 4 years ago

    This is a very specific question related to gun control.
    So if it's ok, I'd like to respond here.

    How about school bus drivers? There is a hostage standoff going on in Alabama. The hostage taker shot a bus driver who stood between him and his passengers. The guy is now holding a young boy hostage.

    Would this have been averted if the bus driver had been armed?

    Where does this proposed solution lead us?
    Do we arm the lunch lady, in case of incidents in the cafeteria?
    Arm coaches to defend the gym?
    All adult workers in the schools?

    1. bBerean profile image61
      bBereanposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Is the goal to see if we can push it to a ridiculous level and then say that any level is ridiculous?  I would not suggest all those people be armed, but on the other hand, if everyone knew as a matter of course that they very well might be, you would see way less crime.  Criminals are rarely if ever looking for a gun fight...they are looking for easy victims.

    2. profile image0
      JaxsonRaineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Any adult should be able to be armed, if they choose. We can try to prevent criminals and unstable people with laws, but they will always be able to get guns.

      If a bus driver wanted to kill all the students on a bus, the policy 'no guns on school buses' isn't going to stop him.

      But, as is often said in favor of gun control, "If we could save just one life, shouldn't we?"

      Think about it though. Gun massacres always happen in gun-free zones. It's because these cowards want to do a ton of damage, get famous, and go out in a blaze of glory(or just shoot themselves when they lose their nerve). What would they do if we stopped providing 'Nobody here can fight back!' zones?

    3. taburkett profile image61
      taburkettposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      as someone who carries 24/7 my answer to your questions is YES.
      everyone should be prepared to defend themselves when the situation calls for it.
      otherwise, more Shady Hook and Alabama hostage situations shall happen.

  9. profile image0
    Sooner28posted 4 years ago

    The hypothetical is woefully inadequate, as others have pointed out already.

    But, if my ONLY choice was to arm a teacher that would have had a chance to stop Lanza, then I would do so. 

    Unfortunately, the weakness of the hypothetical shows it can apply to a variety of bad circumstances.  Use rape.  A woman will be raped in five minutes, and, for some undisclosed reason, the ONLY thing I can do to stop it is to arm her.  Obviously, if my choices are to sit on my hands and do nothing, or to arm the woman (since those are my only choices under this hypothetical), then I would be morally obligated to arm her.

    Unfortunately, this solves nothing at all.  The only type who wouldn't agree would be the most hardcore pacifist alive.

  10. Uninvited Writer profile image81
    Uninvited Writerposted 4 years ago

    Second guessing is so much easier...

  11. taburkett profile image61
    taburkettposted 4 years ago

    It is so sad that so many people do not comprehend the reason to prepare for an activity like Sandy Hook.
    as an individual with training in personal security and body guard tactics, I was made aware of potential  situations concerning physical security.
    therefore, I will attempt to answer this with some common sense.
    I will start by describing some history about fires.
    before there were fire drills, fires consumed individuals because they were not prepared.
    following one of the most horrendous fires, the community got together an created response tactics to protect individuals in burning buildings.
    in addition to yelling fire, they soon found that they required a fire siren or bell to assist them.
    later, they discovered that they needed some automatic sprinklers in some buildings.
    soon, they had additional signs placed into buildings to warn visitors who were not familiar with the building.
    so - what do we do when Sandy Hook happens - we emotionally blame the gun and forget to establish the correct response.
    the first thing we need to do is to create more than one exit for all rooms in the school building because many rooms do not provide more than one way out for those inside.
    the next thing we need to do is to establish tactics to oppose any intruder with a gun - regardless of what it might be.
    then the school must begin to drill the teachers and students in the tactics necessary to provide the best protection for all people found in the situation.

    I do believe that the citizens of the USA must grow up and quit squabbling about their likes or dislikes of a weapon.  The criminals, irrational and demented people, and terrorists will never follow the rules regardless of how many documents some politician may sign.

    1. profile image0
      JaxsonRaineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      I don't know why people don't understand this...

      I don't know why people think we can limit the accessibility to guns, when you can print them off at home...

      I honestly don't understand why many people refuse to listen to logic, instead thinking with emotion.

      1. Kathryn L Hill profile image83
        Kathryn L Hillposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        it is bad to let these incidents take away our rights if we should ever need them to defend ourselves against the government.
        The real guilty party was Mom. But, then she had her issues.  She told someone at a bar that she was "loosing" her son;
        then she went back to drinking.

  12. PrettyPanther profile image85
    PrettyPantherposted 4 years ago

    I simply cannot believe this thread.  Cannot.

    So, here is my suggestion.  Let's encourage open carry laws everywhere, using the current system and regulations for purchasing a gun.  If my overwhelmingly white, rural neighbors like the idea of being able to carry their guns wherever they choose, including into a school (you know, so they can play John McClane and kill all the criminals), then let's make sure that the same freedom is given to everyone and let's encourage everyone to exercise that freedom. 

    Remember the reaction when a couple of Black Panthers just milled around a voting area, without a gun?  Well, imagine how those brave, old white guys with guns would react when law-abiding black men are openly carrying their guns into schools, capitol buildings, public meetings, malls, and sports arenas.

    Imagine.  roll

    This whole conversation has to be one of the most ridiculous things I have ever read.

    1. Uninvited Writer profile image81
      Uninvited Writerposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      You make sense. But, you can't argue with Jaxson, he is always right...

      1. profile image0
        JaxsonRaineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        No, I'm often wrong.

        Problem is, very few people here present and defend actual logical arguments, or actually address the things I say. Most of the time it's either ignored, or misrepresented.

    2. Brisbanelocksmith profile image81
      Brisbanelocksmithposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      You are right, it is a rigged question.
        Did no one see that movie Time Machine? You cant change what has already happened. 
      Anyway here is what would have happened if the teacher had a gun....
      The gunman comes into the room.  The teacher shoots him, but he does not die and is not prosecuted as he never fired any shots.  The teacher goes to jail for manslaughter.  The gunman recovers.  The gunman learns from the first encounter and starts a cult with 100's of followers.  One day the gunman tells all his followers to grab their guns and go to different schools and start shooting.   Result is 100 times worse then first shooting would have been. etc, etc.
      Point being, you can not change the past and if you could the consequences would never be what you expected.

    3. profile image0
      JaxsonRaineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      How nice of you to ignore all of your earlier questions that I actually answered.

      1. PrettyPanther profile image85
        PrettyPantherposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Dear Jaxson,

        Yes, I ignored your answers because as I read through the rest of the thread, it became clear that your advocacy of teachers carrying guns had expanded to everyone carrying guns, so that is what I responded to.

        Now, I'd like to hear what you think would happen should law-abiding, gun-carrying black people show up in the public places I mentioned.  And, please, keep it reality-based.

        We are not living in Die Hard movie.

        By the way, two people just got shot dead at a shooting range in Texas, one of them a Navy SEAL known as the deadliest sniper in U.S. history.  So much for law-abiding, gun carrying citizens stopping the crazies.

        Regards,
        PrettyPanther

        1. profile image0
          JaxsonRaineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          I don't know why I have to keep saying this, I have never said everyone needs to carry guns.

          And what difference does it make if a white man or a black man has a gun?

          If you want to just talk about individual cases, I can provide thousands of cases where civilians have defended themselves or others. You seem to think that I'm saying that my suggestions would eliminate violence, but that's not what I'm saying. There are always going to be murders. That SEAL was working with men who have PTSD, unfortunately they took a course of action for therapy that wasn't the best.

          But, as you ignored my answers to your questions, you are clearly not interested in having an actual discussion. It's pretty rude to demand answers and then ignore them.

          1. PrettyPanther profile image85
            PrettyPantherposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            "I have never said everyone needs to carry guns."

            You're right.  You didn't say that.  You said, "But hey, I think we should repeal the regulation of and ban on new manufacturing of automatic weapons. I also think we should give a free gun to anyone who wants one."

            You have also previously stated that people would be safer if more people carried guns.  You have said that multiple times in multiple ways.

            "But, as you ignored my answers to your questions, you are clearly not interested in having an actual discussion. It's pretty rude to demand answers and then ignore them."

            You like to offer up make-believe scenarios that are impossible to predict the outcome for, or that are so unrealistic as to be ludicrous.  Then, when people don't accept your simplistic answers, they are being "illogical" or "evasive."  If you recall, I said that I would be truly impressed if you answered the questions to the satisfaction of rational individuals.  So, I'm going to pull a Jaxson and say your answer is not acceptable to rational individuals.  I consider myself to be rational, and your scenario is so unpredictable that there is no way to consider it plausible that one teacher with a gun could decrease the chances that no or fewer children would be killed in the event a gunman entered the school.  One could argue, rationally and logically, that a teacher having a gun in the classroom with a key to a locked cabinet on his or her belt could increase the chances that children would be killed.

            "And what difference does it make if a white man or a black man has a gun?"  To some people, it makes no difference, but you are being dishonest if you claim it makes no difference to the demographic that is the typical gun nut.

            So, a trained Navy SEAL "took a course of action that wasn't the best" (your words) and got himself killed. Yet, you're in favor of giving a free gun to everyone who wants one:  people who, even with some gun training, will not come close to the skill, temperament, and training of a Navy SEAL whose "course of action that wasn't the best" (by the way, I like the way you don't just come out and say 'did something irresponsible') resulted in the death of himself and another innocent person.

            Incredible how much you will defend the indefensible.

            1. profile image0
              JaxsonRaineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Me saying we should give a free gun to anyone who wants one was a joke. I was showing how I'm willing to compromise, but I doubt anyone from the gun-control camp is willing to compromise in that direction. If you can't understand the humor in that, it's supposed to point out that 'compromise' in gun control/gun rights always is used as compromising gun rights.

              That being said, even if I were serious that doesn't mean I think everyone needs to carry guns. Only people who want to and haven't had their rights taken or restricted by due process.

              You call it unrealistic, but the parameters that I outlined in my response to you are what happened. Yes, the outcome is unpredictable, but still, I would rather the teacher have a chance than have her herding her kids into the corner of the classroom and trying to protect them with her body.

              It is absolutely plausible that one teacher with a gun could have made a difference, based on reality. In reality, citizens stop bad guys every day. Therefore, it is plausible that it could be done again.

              Can police use guns as a net force for good? If so, what is to stop civilians from doing the same? Either guns can never stop bad guys, or they can. So which is it?

              Lot of stereotyping... would you please show me evidence that the typical 'gun-nut'(also, what constitutes a 'gun-nut'?) is racist?

              Again, I was attempting to show the hypocrisy of someone saying 'the gun-rights crowd is never willing to compromise' with the idea to give free guns to everyone, pointing out that the gun-control crowd is never willing to compromise in favor of gun-rights.

              The incident with the SEAL is unfortunate. He wasn't a doctor, and wasn't qualified to determine if veterans with PTSD were capable of dealing with that sort of situation. He shouldn't have been doing it, but his skill and temperament have nothing to do with the outcome. Only his judgement.

              1. PrettyPanther profile image85
                PrettyPantherposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Yes, "gun nut" is a derogatory term, but I believe it is applicable to people who believe they should be able to own guns without having to submit to common sense regulations like licensing based on performance (just like a driver's license) that is subject to renewal or revocation based upon whether or not applicable laws are followed.

                As for racism, there are plenty of studies to show that whites are more likely to be afraid of blacks and other ethnic minorities, all other things being equal.  Having a gun available to act on that fear only increases the probability that an innocent will be injured or killed.  As for my stereotyping of "gun nuts," yes, I admit that I am doing that.  However, I live in an area with a bunch of them and I don't think I'm wrong about their reaction to a group of law-abiding black men showing up at the local football game carrying guns.  I can't prove it, though; I freely admit that.  I also admit there is a chance I am wrong, but I sincerely doubt it.

                As for the rest, you continue to ignore the probability that having guns in schools might actually increase the chance that a child will be injured or killed, just as having guns in the home increases the probability that a child will be injured or die in a gun-related accident.

  13. taburkett profile image61
    taburkettposted 4 years ago

    weapons should be carried by all trained individuals who desire to protect themselves and others.
    morally responsible people provide responsible protection to those who are both responsible and irresponsible.
    evil is never overcome by making laws because the law is always used after the fact.
    people obsess over political divisive banter because some of the current politicians are very irresponsible.
    when senior elected officials continue to blame others, it is normally becuase they lack the ability to perform the political position tasks they were elected to serve.
    due to the irrational political scene today, the nation continues to wobble towards depression and so the society will continue to be hindered by more viollent crime regardless of any law that is passed.
    the solution for society is not a simple task because many individuals in the nation continue to support irrational political leadership.
    when the government assigns an adequate armed guard to me 24/7 then I might think about giving up my weapons.

  14. Theophanes profile image95
    Theophanesposted 4 years ago

    I do not have any issues with the idea of arming someone to defend themselves - HOWEVER that being said I would be afraid if I armed them 5 minutes beforehand (as  you said) they would be more focused on how to defend themselves with the gun (which lets face it - with no training, no experience, no nothing they probably wouldn't have accomplished anything except MAYBE scaring the guy off for a second, or worse attracting his attention more) than doing what many of them did --- hide the children. I feel at that point it very likely would have done more damage than good.

  15. Kathryn L Hill profile image83
    Kathryn L Hillposted 4 years ago

    Well, the entire population seems to be becoming deviated from what is normal. We used to have a pretty civilized society. The majority of citizens didn't need guns at all, ever!
         Now, we have teens who have been on Ritalin, Adder All or who knows what all their lives. We have kids through adults on pharmaceuticals for all sorts of mental and nervous system problems since they feel they cannot be cured with natural remedies. We have guys back from the military who were prescribed pharmaceuticals and are now on the police force. We have children who are autistic or who have other mental disabilities on pharmaceuticals and we have children through adults playing violent video games.
         Yesterday, my friend and I pulled up in our car into a parking lot. In an adjoining apartment complex teenaged boys were running around apparently playing war. They were at least 13 or 14 and were shooting each other with military style toy guns, but realistic looking. It was a frightening sight.
         In a society which doesn't value natural and safe remedies for "mental disturbances", I think we better be able to protect ourselves against the results.

    I hope this is way exaggerated. If so, we don't need guns that much.
    Yet.

 
working