***OFFICIAL GUN CONTROL DEBATE*** (2 Viewers)

[ATC1]

Putting guns in a classroom won't work. It would obviously have to be locked up, most likely in some sort of safe. And I'm not sure the next gunman will patiently wait for the teacher to unlock the safe, grab the gun, and remove the safety before shooting everyone up. In fact, if it's well known that the teachers have access to weapons, they will be the first target if they arent already.

Why?

Are you seriously questioning that? You would send your kid to an armed classroom where said firearm wasn't very well secured?

I am around my kid all the time were it is secured around my hip with a safety on.

 

[ATC1]

This discussion has gone completely off the rails. We're not going to start arming public schoolteachers. Or train them in martial arts. Or give them tasers. Some of you have gone off the deep end.

If I had two jobs. One as a teacher and the other a night time police officer. Do you think it would be ok to carry in my classroom?

 

[timschochet]

Putting guns in a classroom won't work. It would obviously have to be locked up, most likely in some sort of safe. And I'm not sure the next gunman will patiently wait for the teacher to unlock the safe, grab the gun, and remove the safety before shooting everyone up. In fact, if it's well known that the teachers have access to weapons, they will be the first target if they arent already.

Why?

Are you seriously questioning that? You would send your kid to an armed classroom where said firearm wasn't very well secured?

I am around my kid all the time were it is secured around my hip with a safety on.

Based on your posts, ATC1, I'm betting you enjoy having firearms, you've had years of extensive training and usage, and you feel extremely comfortable around them. I'm also betting that NONE of this is true for the woman that teaches my fifth grade daughter.

 

[TobiasFunke]

Putting guns in a classroom won't work. It would obviously have to be locked up, most likely in some sort of safe. And I'm not sure the next gunman will patiently wait for the teacher to unlock the safe, grab the gun, and remove the safety before shooting everyone up. In fact, if it's well known that the teachers have access to weapons, they will be the first target if they arent already.

Why?

This is where the pro-gun side loses those of us who are on the fence. For Christ's sake, just act slightly less insane.

Main focus was because teachers can not be trusted? Or a kid may grab the weapon? I have not heard of a situation where someone went behind a person carrying concealed, grabbed the gun and shot. Guns don't just fall off people's hips. Why are they considered dangerous concealed?

Kid may grab the weapon, obviously. And concealed weapons wouldn't be a reasonable comparison- if it's a policy its existence is well-known, and thus not "concealed." And I can understand maybe if you personally hadn't heard a story on the local newsor something where someone's concealed weapon resulted in a dangerous or life-threatening incident. What's weird, however, is why you don't know how to use Google.

 

[timschochet]

This discussion has gone completely off the rails. We're not going to start arming public schoolteachers. Or train them in martial arts. Or give them tasers. Some of you have gone off the deep end.

If I had two jobs. One as a teacher and the other a night time police officer. Do you think it would be ok to carry in my classroom?

No. I really would prefer my kids to have weapons free classrooms.

 

[butcher boy]

Putting guns in a classroom won't work. It would obviously have to be locked up, most likely in some sort of safe. And I'm not sure the next gunman will patiently wait for the teacher to unlock the safe, grab the gun, and remove the safety before shooting everyone up. In fact, if it's well known that the teachers have access to weapons, they will be the first target if they arent already.

Why?

Are you seriously questioning that? You would send your kid to an armed classroom where said firearm wasn't very well secured?

I am around my kid all the time were it is secured around my hip with a safety on.

Yes, but you realize that most teachers are not gun nuts right? Some of them are sweet, little old ladies who have neither the desire nor the physical capabilities that might be needed to carry and use a firearm. You realize they already get paid an abysmal salary that does not currently cover the added stress of keeping a firearm secure.So yes, this might work if all the NRA loving, conservative gun worshippers suddenly took all of the teaching positions, but then I probably wouldn't want people like that teaching my kids in the first place.

 

[Dvorak]

Putting guns in a classroom won't work. It would obviously have to be locked up, most likely in some sort of safe. And I'm not sure the next gunman will patiently wait for the teacher to unlock the safe, grab the gun, and remove the safety before shooting everyone up. In fact, if it's well known that the teachers have access to weapons, they will be the first target if they arent already.

Why?

This is where the pro-gun side loses those of us who are on the fence. For Christ's sake, just act slightly less insane.

Main focus was because teachers can not be trusted? Or a kid may grab the weapon? I have not heard of a situation where someone went behind a person carrying concealed, grabbed the gun and shot. Guns don't just fall off people's hips. Why are they considered dangerous concealed?

Kid may grab the weapon, obviously. And concealed weapons wouldn't be a reasonable comparison- if it's a policy its existence is well-known, and thus not "concealed." And I can understand maybe if you personally hadn't heard a story on the local newsor something where someone's concealed weapon resulted in a dangerous or life-threatening incident. What's weird, however, is why you don't know how to use Google.

Let's give the teachers that are comfortable with the responsibility taxpayer-paid training in active shooter situations with the local police force, local range membership, monthly ammo stipends and one of those smart handguns with a Magna-Trigger system.

 

[timschochet]

To be fair, Tommyboy and ATC1 are not the only people making the argument right now that the solution is to arm teachers. A number of conservative voices, including Ann Coulter, Sean Hannity, and Rep. Louis Gohmert, have said the same thing. Personally I don't understand the mindset.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

Yes, but you realize that most teachers are not gun nuts right? Some of them are sweet, little old ladies who have neither the desire nor the physical capabilities that might be needed to carry and use a firearm.

The simple, common sense solution is obviously to require all public school teachers to spend five years in a monastary in the far east being trainined in the Five Point Palm Exploding Heart technique. Well, either that or ban high-capacity magazines, but really the magazine thing is too complicated to be worthwhile.

 

[ATC1]

Putting guns in a classroom won't work. It would obviously have to be locked up, most likely in some sort of safe. And I'm not sure the next gunman will patiently wait for the teacher to unlock the safe, grab the gun, and remove the safety before shooting everyone up. In fact, if it's well known that the teachers have access to weapons, they will be the first target if they arent already.

Why?

Are you seriously questioning that? You would send your kid to an armed classroom where said firearm wasn't very well secured?

I am around my kid all the time were it is secured around my hip with a safety on.

Based on your posts, ATC1, I'm betting you enjoy having firearms, you've had years of extensive training and usage, and you feel extremely comfortable around them. I'm also betting that NONE of this is true for the woman that teaches my fifth grade daughter.

If I were a professor at a University? I understand that what I am asking seems on the far end of the spectrum. That's why I made the suggestion of tasers instead. Middle ground. I'll stand here for now.

 

[shader]

Putting guns in a classroom won't work. It would obviously have to be locked up, most likely in some sort of safe. And I'm not sure the next gunman will patiently wait for the teacher to unlock the safe, grab the gun, and remove the safety before shooting everyone up. In fact, if it's well known that the teachers have access to weapons, they will be the first target if they arent already.

Why?

Are you seriously questioning that? You would send your kid to an armed classroom where said firearm wasn't very well secured?

I am around my kid all the time were it is secured around my hip with a safety on.

Serious question. No shtick here.Why do you need to wear a gun all the time? Professional reasons?

 

[parasaurolophus]

Because Mexican drug cartels are struggling financially?

No, because if they cost $200,000 each and were tightly regulated as discussed above, there would be a whole hell of a lot less of them made and lost track of.

We are talking about billionaire criminal organizations in a corrupt country. They would simply ship them in to South America and smuggle them up. Hell, they could probably ship them straight in to Mexico given how corrupt the governments are.

And do you think they will then sell those guns back across the U.S. border for less than they paid for them?

I dont think you are understanding how this would work. You are proposing that they can still be manufactured.You are proposing that they be forced to cost 200k in the US.This would go down one of two ways. They would stop selling them in the US and ship them to Mexico. They would get sold in Mexico and then transported back up here illegally. Or they would relocate to Mexico, sell them in mexico and they would get transported up here. The gun makers arent going to just fold up shop and say oh well it was a good run. If your proposal would then be that they can't be sold even in Mexico for less than 200k you are talking about changes that are much bigger than guns.

 

[Apple Jack]

The scariest thing about this thread is not simply that people still argue against these restrictions in the wake of the CT shooting, but that we get a look into the mental state of the people who are the ones with the guns. Especially these conceal carry types.

 

[shader]

Putting guns in a classroom won't work. It would obviously have to be locked up, most likely in some sort of safe. And I'm not sure the next gunman will patiently wait for the teacher to unlock the safe, grab the gun, and remove the safety before shooting everyone up. In fact, if it's well known that the teachers have access to weapons, they will be the first target if they arent already.

Why?

Are you seriously questioning that? You would send your kid to an armed classroom where said firearm wasn't very well secured?

I am around my kid all the time were it is secured around my hip with a safety on.

Based on your posts, ATC1, I'm betting you enjoy having firearms, you've had years of extensive training and usage, and you feel extremely comfortable around them. I'm also betting that NONE of this is true for the woman that teaches my fifth grade daughter.

If I were a professor at a University? I understand that what I am asking seems on the far end of the spectrum. That's why I made the suggestion of tasers instead. Middle ground. I'll stand here for now.

Or slingshots. Everyone knows how to use slingshots.

 

[TobiasFunke]

Putting guns in a classroom won't work. It would obviously have to be locked up, most likely in some sort of safe. And I'm not sure the next gunman will patiently wait for the teacher to unlock the safe, grab the gun, and remove the safety before shooting everyone up. In fact, if it's well known that the teachers have access to weapons, they will be the first target if they arent already.

Why?

Are you seriously questioning that? You would send your kid to an armed classroom where said firearm wasn't very well secured?

I am around my kid all the time were it is secured around my hip with a safety on.

Yes, but you realize that most teachers are not gun nuts right? Some of them are sweet, little old ladies who have neither the desire nor the physical capabilities that might be needed to carry and use a firearm. You realize they already get paid an abysmal salary that does not currently cover the added stress of keeping a firearm secure.So yes, this might work if all the NRA loving, conservative gun worshippers suddenly took all of the teaching positions, but then I probably wouldn't want people like that teaching my kids in the first place.

Don't forget that we'd also have to convince taxpayers to absorb the financial burden of arming and training literally millions of teachers, as well as the presumably significant added insurance burden that would go along with allowing these state employees to carry loaded weapons at all times, and probably more extensive screening and psychological testing of teachers too.That shouldn't be a problem, though. States are swimming in money these days, plus the public seems very open to the idea of raising taxes to cover additional costs associated with government employees.

 

[tom22406]

I am totally against arming our teachers.

Why not hire veterans of our military or some other qualified person to do this if you wanted to guard the kids?

And no I am not advocating a Wild West style of school but a trained professional who can,at the very least,be a good first line of defense.

 

[timschochet]

Yes, but you realize that most teachers are not gun nuts right? Some of them are sweet, little old ladies who have neither the desire nor the physical capabilities that might be needed to carry and use a firearm.

The simple, common sense solution is obviously to require all public school teachers to spend five years in a monastary in the far east being trainined in the Five Point Palm Exploding Heart technique. Well, either that or ban high-capacity magazines, but really the magazine thing is too complicated to be worthwhile.

I'm led to believe, based on info provided in this thread, that banning the magazines won't work because some of the crazy shooters are bad ### FBG types who can fire 100 rounds a second, change clips in the blink of an eye, and weld extra magazines onto their firearms.

 

[Schlzm]

Also- and this is meant more as a question and not an argument (at least not yet)- I keep reading that fully automatic weapons are already illegal. Yet these rifles that ARE legal can fire up to 60 bullets per minute??? Am I missing something here, or is the legal difference between automatic and semi-automatic rather negligible?

automatic weapons are not illegal to own in some states

Depending on the state you live in you may be able to purchase a grenade launcher, flame thrower or .50cal belt fed machine gun. Also to answer Tim and anyone else in this thread whose entire firearms knowledge has been gained from tv, movies and video games, 60rpm is pretty slow. Here is some tech data to educate you on the differences between rate of fire:AR-15 (.223cal) semi-auto estimated at ~60rpm (accurate) requiring one 30rnd mag change.

M-4A1 (5.56NATO) full-auto listed at 700-950rpm (inaccurate) requiring multiple 30rnd mag changes.

Glock 17 (9x19mm) semi-auto estimated at ~40rpm (accurate) requiring a variable number of mag changes. (different mag sizes available)

Glock 18 (9x19mm) full-auto listed at 1,100-1,200rpm (inaccurate) requiring a variable number of mag changes. (different mag sizes available)

Schlzm

Thanks for the info.I did not realize the heavy rate of fire.

In that case, perhaps all of these weapons should be illegal. I know it's not going to happen, but perhaps they should be. I fail to see what purpose they serve, other than personal pleasure of the owner, and to me that's not enough to justify their existence against the threat to public safety that their availability entails. I have tried to stay moderate on this subject, but your information is forcing me into an extreme position.

Personal protection against a wide variety of threats? You can outlaw "assault" rifles or pistols but then someone would switch to a shotgun which allows for significant more damage to be done with less skill and little more overhead on reloading. Ban shotguns? Then said psycho will just make a bunch of molotov cocktails could potentially take even more lives while causing large amounts of property damage and placing first responders and emergency personnel into even greater danger. Schlzm

 

[ATC1]

Putting guns in a classroom won't work. It would obviously have to be locked up, most likely in some sort of safe. And I'm not sure the next gunman will patiently wait for the teacher to unlock the safe, grab the gun, and remove the safety before shooting everyone up. In fact, if it's well known that the teachers have access to weapons, they will be the first target if they arent already.

Why?

Are you seriously questioning that? You would send your kid to an armed classroom where said firearm wasn't very well secured?

I am around my kid all the time were it is secured around my hip with a safety on.

Yes, but you realize that most teachers are not gun nuts right? Some of them are sweet, little old ladies who have neither the desire nor the physical capabilities that might be needed to carry and use a firearm. You realize they already get paid an abysmal salary that does not currently cover the added stress of keeping a firearm secure.So yes, this might work if all the NRA loving, conservative gun worshippers suddenly took all of the teaching positions, but then I probably wouldn't want people like that teaching my kids in the first place.

You do realize I'm not saying arm all teachers, right? I wouldn't have a taser in the classroom locked of a teacher not trained to use them. For those who want to be trained and meet all the requirements of a carry permit (They should be stricter IMO) should not be forced to leave their weapon in the car.

It's not the wild West. Step one in self defense is not pull you taser/gun out and start shooting. It is find cover, what anyone not armed would do.

 

[Jobber]

I think it's obvious that nothing useful will come out of this tragedy. Oh well, now we can just hang around and wait for the next big news story so we can forget all about this.

 

[ATC1]

Putting guns in a classroom won't work. It would obviously have to be locked up, most likely in some sort of safe. And I'm not sure the next gunman will patiently wait for the teacher to unlock the safe, grab the gun, and remove the safety before shooting everyone up. In fact, if it's well known that the teachers have access to weapons, they will be the first target if they arent already.

Why?

Are you seriously questioning that? You would send your kid to an armed classroom where said firearm wasn't very well secured?

I am around my kid all the time were it is secured around my hip with a safety on.

Yes, but you realize that most teachers are not gun nuts right? Some of them are sweet, little old ladies who have neither the desire nor the physical capabilities that might be needed to carry and use a firearm. You realize they already get paid an abysmal salary that does not currently cover the added stress of keeping a firearm secure.So yes, this might work if all the NRA loving, conservative gun worshippers suddenly took all of the teaching positions, but then I probably wouldn't want people like that teaching my kids in the first place.

Don't forget that we'd also have to convince taxpayers to absorb the financial burden of arming and training literally millions of teachers, as well as the presumably significant added insurance burden that would go along with allowing these state employees to carry loaded weapons at all times, and probably more extensive screening and psychological testing of teachers too.That shouldn't be a problem, though. States are swimming in money these days, plus the public seems very open to the idea of raising taxes to cover additional costs associated with government employees.

I had to come out of my own pocket to be trained. It's a choice not a requirement. Cost less then hiring an armed guard in every school.

 

[jafo]

To be fair, Tommyboy and ATC1 are not the only people making the argument right now that the solution is to arm teachers. A number of conservative voices, including Ann Coulter, Sean Hannity, and Rep. Louis Gohmert, have said the same thing. Personally I don't understand the mindset.

If a teacher already has a concealed carry permit, or wanted to get one, why should they not be able to carry in the school? I would happily send my 2 children to that school. I would feel more comfortable knowing that a trained staff member would be able to protect my kids from the type of tragedy that happened last week.

 

[Schlzm]

Yes, but you realize that most teachers are not gun nuts right? Some of them are sweet, little old ladies who have neither the desire nor the physical capabilities that might be needed to carry and use a firearm.

The simple, common sense solution is obviously to require all public school teachers to spend five years in a monastary in the far east being trainined in the Five Point Palm Exploding Heart technique. Well, either that or ban high-capacity magazines, but really the magazine thing is too complicated to be worthwhile.

I'm led to believe, based on info provided in this thread, that banning the magazines won't work because some of the crazy shooters are bad ### FBG types who can fire 100 rounds a second, change clips in the blink of an eye, and weld extra magazines onto their firearms.

Throw around sarcasm all you guys want but simply banning something doesn't make it suddenly vanish. Also what would be considered high-capacity? In comparison to what? I double barrel breach load shotgun is higher capacity than single barrel breach load shotgun. Also I think everyone would agree that a six round revolver is not high capacity or an assault type weapon. However anyone who has at least seen Boondock Saints can see how easy it would be to carry eight <or more> revolvers. Then people start laughing at the cost of having a few trained teachers or administrators in schools <and falsely just assume that all teachers are as terrified of firearms as they are> however simply ignore the cost of enforcing the new bans. Are you advocating LE to go searching every persons home in America looking for this new contraband or do we just treat like most other items and attempt to catch people in possession of them before they are used in perpetration of some other crime?Schlzm

 

[ATC1]

The responsible person who took the effort on their own to get a background check, safety classes and went trained how to effectively protect themselves and their loved ones is exactly the type of person I would want to teach my kid.

My 5 year old knows about guns. At this point she knows and repeats never to touch one. If someone is holding a gun she knows to find cover and remain calm. When asked if she would like to shoot a cap gun one little boy had at a party, she says "no, daddy don't play with any type of gun." That is completely fine.

 

[BassNBrew]

Teachers need these.

 

[Henry Ford]

Because Mexican drug cartels are struggling financially?

No, because if they cost $200,000 each and were tightly regulated as discussed above, there would be a whole hell of a lot less of them made and lost track of.

We are talking about billionaire criminal organizations in a corrupt country. They would simply ship them in to South America and smuggle them up. Hell, they could probably ship them straight in to Mexico given how corrupt the governments are.

And do you think they will then sell those guns back across the U.S. border for less than they paid for them?

I dont think you are understanding how this would work. You are proposing that they can still be manufactured.You are proposing that they be forced to cost 200k in the US.This would go down one of two ways. They would stop selling them in the US and ship them to Mexico. They would get sold in Mexico and then transported back up here illegally. Or they would relocate to Mexico, sell them in mexico and they would get transported up here. The gun makers arent going to just fold up shop and say oh well it was a good run. If your proposal would then be that they can't be sold even in Mexico for less than 200k you are talking about changes that are much bigger than guns.

My proposal is that people stop conflating assault weapons with Ferrarris.

 

[Joe T]

This discussion has gone completely off the rails.

This is the first time I've ever agreed with Tim on anything.

 

[Schlzm]

Because Mexican drug cartels are struggling financially?

No, because if they cost $200,000 each and were tightly regulated as discussed above, there would be a whole hell of a lot less of them made and lost track of.

We are talking about billionaire criminal organizations in a corrupt country. They would simply ship them in to South America and smuggle them up. Hell, they could probably ship them straight in to Mexico given how corrupt the governments are.

And do you think they will then sell those guns back across the U.S. border for less than they paid for them?

I dont think you are understanding how this would work. You are proposing that they can still be manufactured.You are proposing that they be forced to cost 200k in the US.This would go down one of two ways. They would stop selling them in the US and ship them to Mexico. They would get sold in Mexico and then transported back up here illegally. Or they would relocate to Mexico, sell them in mexico and they would get transported up here. The gun makers arent going to just fold up shop and say oh well it was a good run. If your proposal would then be that they can't be sold even in Mexico for less than 200k you are talking about changes that are much bigger than guns.

My proposal is that people stop conflating assault weapons with Ferrarris.

The Tesla is the obvious vehicle to be compared to assault weapons. Schlzm

 

[ATC1]

Kid may grab the weapon, obviously. And concealed weapons wouldn't be a reasonable comparison- if it's a policy its existence is well-known, and thus not "concealed."

And I can understand maybe if you personally hadn't heard a story on the local newsor something where someone's concealed weapon resulted in a dangerous or life-threatening incident. What's weird, however, is why you don't know how to use Google.

Tobias, I know you like to tell everyone on far both sides they are crazy. As someone on the fence, what solutions do you propose? Would you have an armed guard in gun free zones? Because you know police officers tend to break the rules from time to time as well.

 

[TobiasFunke]

Putting guns in a classroom won't work. It would obviously have to be locked up, most likely in some sort of safe. And I'm not sure the next gunman will patiently wait for the teacher to unlock the safe, grab the gun, and remove the safety before shooting everyone up. In fact, if it's well known that the teachers have access to weapons, they will be the first target if they arent already.

Why?

Are you seriously questioning that? You would send your kid to an armed classroom where said firearm wasn't very well secured?

I am around my kid all the time were it is secured around my hip with a safety on.

Yes, but you realize that most teachers are not gun nuts right? Some of them are sweet, little old ladies who have neither the desire nor the physical capabilities that might be needed to carry and use a firearm. You realize they already get paid an abysmal salary that does not currently cover the added stress of keeping a firearm secure.So yes, this might work if all the NRA loving, conservative gun worshippers suddenly took all of the teaching positions, but then I probably wouldn't want people like that teaching my kids in the first place.

Don't forget that we'd also have to convince taxpayers to absorb the financial burden of arming and training literally millions of teachers, as well as the presumably significant added insurance burden that would go along with allowing these state employees to carry loaded weapons at all times, and probably more extensive screening and psychological testing of teachers too.That shouldn't be a problem, though. States are swimming in money these days, plus the public seems very open to the idea of raising taxes to cover additional costs associated with government employees.

I had to come out of my own pocket to be trained. It's a choice not a requirement. Cost less then hiring an armed guard in every school.

So are you saying it's discretionary and the teachers have to pay for it out of their own pocket? How is that a solution, then? Schoolteachers tend not to have a lot of disposable income, and in my admittedly limited experience most of them don't fall on gun nut side of the political spectrum. So you're probably not stopping any future school shootings with this.Seriously, I wish the pro-gun side would just pull it back a little. You don't have to think more guns is a bad thing. I'm not sure it's a bad thing myself. But stop insisting that having more guns around will solve some of our problems. Maybe just stick with the argument that gun control is not a solution. That's something that many of us can agree on. The fantasy of effective vigilantes is not. It makes no sense, has no statistical support, and is a frightening concept for many. It's just not the way to win hearts and minds.

 

[jonessed]

Yes, but you realize that most teachers are not gun nuts right? Some of them are sweet, little old ladies who have neither the desire nor the physical capabilities that might be needed to carry and use a firearm.

The simple, common sense solution is obviously to require all public school teachers to spend five years in a monastary in the far east being trainined in the Five Point Palm Exploding Heart technique. Well, either that or ban high-capacity magazines, but really the magazine thing is too complicated to be worthwhile.

I'm led to believe, based on info provided in this thread, that banning the magazines won't work because some of the crazy shooters are bad ### FBG types who can fire 100 rounds a second, change clips in the blink of an eye, and weld extra magazines onto their firearms.

Considering a few pages ago you couldn't articulate the differences between a semi-automatic and a fully automatic weapon I'm not so sure you are in a position to poke fun at people about their gun knowledge.

 

[Apple Jack]

To be fair, Tommyboy and ATC1 are not the only people making the argument right now that the solution is to arm teachers. A number of conservative voices, including Ann Coulter, Sean Hannity, and Rep. Louis Gohmert, have said the same thing. Personally I don't understand the mindset.

If a teacher already has a concealed carry permit, or wanted to get one, why should they not be able to carry in the school? I would happily send my 2 children to that school. I would feel more comfortable knowing that a trained staff member would be able to protect my kids from the type of tragedy that happened last week.

Right, but many of us realize that these are the LAST people we want our children around with a loaded weapon. That's the problem. When you're talking about loaded guns in classrooms, you have gone completely around the bend and have become a farce in the gun debate.

 

[17seconds]

The scariest thing about this thread is not simply that people still argue against these restrictions in the wake of the CT shooting, but that we get a look into the mental state of the people who are the ones with the guns. Especially these conceal carry types.

I think I've mentioned this before. I have a neighbor 3 houses down - a ~50yo woman who lives with her mom. They are both absolutely crazy. You know when you meet someone and try to engage in small talk and about a minute into it you realize "oh, I'm speaking to a crazy person..."? That's both of them. They are both on some kind of government assistance and I think they smoke pot all day.This woman sits outside on the curb all day feeding birds. She's talked about shooting coyotes that come near her house to protect her cat. We aren't out in the woods, this is a tract home community. Best of all she has a bumper sticker on her pickup that reads "Gun control is using 2 hands".

 

[Schlzm]

Kid may grab the weapon, obviously. And concealed weapons wouldn't be a reasonable comparison- if it's a policy its existence is well-known, and thus not "concealed."

And I can understand maybe if you personally hadn't heard a story on the local newsor something where someone's concealed weapon resulted in a dangerous or life-threatening incident. What's weird, however, is why you don't know how to use Google.

Tobias, I know you like to tell everyone on far both sides they are crazy. As someone on the fence, what solutions do you propose? Would you have an armed guard in gun free zones? Because you know police officers tend to break the rules from time to time as well.

I find it more interesting that Tobias likes to play little games like this to not prove any point he is attempting to make but simply to try and make the person he is arguing with look bad. The data from the first link in the search, violence policy center, has been collected over a five and a half year stretch showing a total of 499 people killed by someone with a CCL. However almost that many school aged children have been shot in Chicago this year alone; source, which has some of the most restrictive firearms laws in the US.Schlzm

 

[TobiasFunke]

Kid may grab the weapon, obviously. And concealed weapons wouldn't be a reasonable comparison- if it's a policy its existence is well-known, and thus not "concealed."

And I can understand maybe if you personally hadn't heard a story on the local newsor something where someone's concealed weapon resulted in a dangerous or life-threatening incident. What's weird, however, is why you don't know how to use Google.

Tobias, I know you like to tell everyone on far both sides they are crazy. As someone on the fence, what solutions do you propose? Would you have an armed guard in gun free zones? Because you know police officers tend to break the rules from time to time as well.

I like Yankee's idea of strict liability for gun owners (and possibly gun sellers) for all damages caused by weapons they own (and possibly sell). It strongly encourages responsible behavior without banning a single weapon or imposing a new cost on the taxpayer. We impose strict liability on other people and businesses that engage in "ultrahazardous" activities, I don't see why we can't impose it on gun owners and sellers.

 

[timschochet]

Also- and this is meant more as a question and not an argument (at least not yet)- I keep reading that fully automatic weapons are already illegal. Yet these rifles that ARE legal can fire up to 60 bullets per minute??? Am I missing something here, or is the legal difference between automatic and semi-automatic rather negligible?

automatic weapons are not illegal to own in some states

Depending on the state you live in you may be able to purchase a grenade launcher, flame thrower or .50cal belt fed machine gun. Also to answer Tim and anyone else in this thread whose entire firearms knowledge has been gained from tv, movies and video games, 60rpm is pretty slow. Here is some tech data to educate you on the differences between rate of fire:AR-15 (.223cal) semi-auto estimated at ~60rpm (accurate) requiring one 30rnd mag change.

M-4A1 (5.56NATO) full-auto listed at 700-950rpm (inaccurate) requiring multiple 30rnd mag changes.

Glock 17 (9x19mm) semi-auto estimated at ~40rpm (accurate) requiring a variable number of mag changes. (different mag sizes available)

Glock 18 (9x19mm) full-auto listed at 1,100-1,200rpm (inaccurate) requiring a variable number of mag changes. (different mag sizes available)

Schlzm

Thanks for the info.I did not realize the heavy rate of fire.

In that case, perhaps all of these weapons should be illegal. I know it's not going to happen, but perhaps they should be. I fail to see what purpose they serve, other than personal pleasure of the owner, and to me that's not enough to justify their existence against the threat to public safety that their availability entails. I have tried to stay moderate on this subject, but your information is forcing me into an extreme position.

Personal protection against a wide variety of threats? You can outlaw "assault" rifles or pistols but then someone would switch to a shotgun which allows for significant more damage to be done with less skill and little more overhead on reloading. Ban shotguns? Then said psycho will just make a bunch of molotov cocktails could potentially take even more lives while causing large amounts of property damage and placing first responders and emergency personnel into even greater danger. Schlzm

Please describe the "wide variety of threats" which require you to have a weapon which fires over 60 rounds a minute. Is this the Red Dawn scenario again?

 

[TPW]

The scariest thing about this thread is not simply that people still argue against these restrictions in the wake of the CT shooting, but that we get a look into the mental state of the people who are the ones with the guns. Especially these conceal carry types.

What's really scary is that in your zeal to have complete control of your surroundings you are so willing to strip trained, law abiding citizens of their rights.

 

[Joe T]

Love Red Dawn.

 

[jonessed]

Kid may grab the weapon, obviously. And concealed weapons wouldn't be a reasonable comparison- if it's a policy its existence is well-known, and thus not "concealed."

And I can understand maybe if you personally hadn't heard a story on the local newsor something where someone's concealed weapon resulted in a dangerous or life-threatening incident. What's weird, however, is why you don't know how to use Google.

Tobias, I know you like to tell everyone on far both sides they are crazy. As someone on the fence, what solutions do you propose? Would you have an armed guard in gun free zones? Because you know police officers tend to break the rules from time to time as well.

I like Yankee's idea of strict liability for gun owners (and possibly gun sellers) for all damages caused by weapons they own (and possibly sell). It strongly encourages responsible behavior without banning a single weapon or imposing a new cost on the taxpayer. We impose strict liability on other people and businesses that engage in "ultrahazardous" activities, I don't see why we can't impose it on gun owners and sellers.

You might be able to do something with gun owners, but if someone sells a gun legally I don't see how they can be blamed for any resulting incident. Are you going to sue car dealers for selling cars used in DUI deaths? Wal-Mart for cutlery stabbings? Unless there is malice or gross negligence I don't see how anything would stick.

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

We impose strict liability on other people and businesses that engage in "ultrahazardous" activities, I don't see why we can't impose it on gun owners and sellers.

Because it often results in unfair outcomes. And I'm not sure how big a deterrent it would really be. The likelihood that your gun will be stolen and used in a crime is pretty small.

 

[TobiasFunke]

Kid may grab the weapon, obviously. And concealed weapons wouldn't be a reasonable comparison- if it's a policy its existence is well-known, and thus not "concealed."

And I can understand maybe if you personally hadn't heard a story on the local newsor something where someone's concealed weapon resulted in a dangerous or life-threatening incident. What's weird, however, is why you don't know how to use Google.

Tobias, I know you like to tell everyone on far both sides they are crazy. As someone on the fence, what solutions do you propose? Would you have an armed guard in gun free zones? Because you know police officers tend to break the rules from time to time as well.

I find it more interesting that Tobias likes to play little games like this to not prove any point he is attempting to make but simply to try and make the person he is arguing with look bad. The data from the first link in the search, violence policy center, has been collected over a five and a half year stretch showing a total of 499 people killed by someone with a CCL. However almost that many school aged children have been shot in Chicago this year alone; source, which has some of the most restrictive firearms laws in the US.Schlzm

Both here and in other discussions, my main "point" is to challenge arguments I disagree with or think are silly. I learn a lot that way, and I also enjoy calling out other people's BS. For example, my only point in the Google link was to show that accidents or other unfortunate incidents associated with concealed carries happen plenty, even though ATC1 previously said he didn't know of any. I don't have any idea what that has to do with the number of school aged children shot in Chicago. I wasn't making a comparison, and even if I was I have no idea how the two statistics you compare make any sort of point at all.

 

[tommyboy]

You'll note i didn't include tasers in my suggestions. The best "weapon" against these type attacks would be the stun, or flash-bang grenade. You dont need to be rambo to use one and they are highly effective.

 

[17seconds]

The scariest thing about this thread is not simply that people still argue against these restrictions in the wake of the CT shooting, but that we get a look into the mental state of the people who are the ones with the guns. Especially these conceal carry types.

What's really scary is that in your zeal to have complete control of your surroundings you are so willing to strip trained, law abiding citizens of their rights.

Not saying this is you, but your statement made me think...Why is it the right wing is terrified of every "abnormal" behavior in people but they are fine with everyone carrying guns?

 

[ericttspikes]

The scariest thing about this thread is not simply that people still argue against these restrictions in the wake of the CT shooting, but that we get a look into the mental state of the people who are the ones with the guns. Especially these conceal carry types.

What's really scary is that in your zeal to have complete control of your surroundings you are so willing to strip trained, law abiding citizens of their rights.

Kinda like 9/11?

 

[ATC1]

Putting guns in a classroom won't work. It would obviously have to be locked up, most likely in some sort of safe. And I'm not sure the next gunman will patiently wait for the teacher to unlock the safe, grab the gun, and remove the safety before shooting everyone up. In fact, if it's well known that the teachers have access to weapons, they will be the first target if they arent already.

Why?

Are you seriously questioning that? You would send your kid to an armed classroom where said firearm wasn't very well secured?

I am around my kid all the time were it is secured around my hip with a safety on.

Yes, but you realize that most teachers are not gun nuts right? Some of them are sweet, little old ladies who have neither the desire nor the physical capabilities that might be needed to carry and use a firearm. You realize they already get paid an abysmal salary that does not currently cover the added stress of keeping a firearm secure.So yes, this might work if all the NRA loving, conservative gun worshippers suddenly took all of the teaching positions, but then I probably wouldn't want people like that teaching my kids in the first place.

Don't forget that we'd also have to convince taxpayers to absorb the financial burden of arming and training literally millions of teachers, as well as the presumably significant added insurance burden that would go along with allowing these state employees to carry loaded weapons at all times, and probably more extensive screening and psychological testing of teachers too.That shouldn't be a problem, though. States are swimming in money these days, plus the public seems very open to the idea of raising taxes to cover additional costs associated with government employees.

I had to come out of my own pocket to be trained. It's a choice not a requirement. Cost less then hiring an armed guard in every school.

So are you saying it's discretionary and the teachers have to pay for it out of their own pocket? How is that a solution, then? Schoolteachers tend not to have a lot of disposable income, and in my admittedly limited experience most of them don't fall on gun nut side of the political spectrum. So you're probably not stopping any future school shootings with this.Seriously, I wish the pro-gun side would just pull it back a little. You don't have to think more guns is a bad thing. I'm not sure it's a bad thing myself. But stop insisting that having more guns around will solve some of our problems. Maybe just stick with the argument that gun control is not a solution. That's something that many of us can agree on. The fantasy of effective vigilantes is not. It makes no sense, has no statistical support, and is a frightening concept for many. It's just not the way to win hearts and minds.

What about less guns for those irresponsible, but not restricted in the hands of those responsible? I am on the bottom 1/4 of the FBG salary chart. It is a personal choice. Would a school choose to pay for those interested in self defense classes I would be behind it. All I'm saying is don't restrict those who did prove they are responsible.

I just wish doing away with gun free zones was given a chance. I have posted many times that the aurora shooter could have chosen a closer theater to his house, but he happen to choose a further location with the no firearm sign posted on the front doors. There are instances where people have been stopped by responsible citizens.

Can we all agree that if there were more responsible citizens in this nation, it would be a safer place to live?

 

[Schlzm]

Also- and this is meant more as a question and not an argument (at least not yet)- I keep reading that fully automatic weapons are already illegal. Yet these rifles that ARE legal can fire up to 60 bullets per minute??? Am I missing something here, or is the legal difference between automatic and semi-automatic rather negligible?

automatic weapons are not illegal to own in some states

Depending on the state you live in you may be able to purchase a grenade launcher, flame thrower or .50cal belt fed machine gun. Also to answer Tim and anyone else in this thread whose entire firearms knowledge has been gained from tv, movies and video games, 60rpm is pretty slow. Here is some tech data to educate you on the differences between rate of fire:AR-15 (.223cal) semi-auto estimated at ~60rpm (accurate) requiring one 30rnd mag change.

M-4A1 (5.56NATO) full-auto listed at 700-950rpm (inaccurate) requiring multiple 30rnd mag changes.

Glock 17 (9x19mm) semi-auto estimated at ~40rpm (accurate) requiring a variable number of mag changes. (different mag sizes available)

Glock 18 (9x19mm) full-auto listed at 1,100-1,200rpm (inaccurate) requiring a variable number of mag changes. (different mag sizes available)

Schlzm

Thanks for the info.I did not realize the heavy rate of fire.

In that case, perhaps all of these weapons should be illegal. I know it's not going to happen, but perhaps they should be. I fail to see what purpose they serve, other than personal pleasure of the owner, and to me that's not enough to justify their existence against the threat to public safety that their availability entails. I have tried to stay moderate on this subject, but your information is forcing me into an extreme position.

Personal protection against a wide variety of threats? You can outlaw "assault" rifles or pistols but then someone would switch to a shotgun which allows for significant more damage to be done with less skill and little more overhead on reloading. Ban shotguns? Then said psycho will just make a bunch of molotov cocktails could potentially take even more lives while causing large amounts of property damage and placing first responders and emergency personnel into even greater danger. Schlzm

Please describe the "wide variety of threats" which require you to have a weapon which fires over 60 rounds a minute. Is this the Red Dawn scenario again?

First off I am just going to point out that you are showing a massive amount of ignorance on this subject when you try and use the estimated rate of fire as some sort of reason against anything. Just because a certain platform, such as the Glock 18 I listed earlier, has a high rate of fire doesn't actually mean that is how many rounds are guaranteed to be fired. As to address your question. Other than any "Red Dawn", "Dawn of the Dead" or whatever scenarios you try and trot out to discredit people. There are other environmental factors that might just require or warrant the use of a weapon capable of firing at least one shot per second accurately. A few include rabid wildlife or a violent criminal(s) breaking into ones home. There are plenty of people here terrified of pitbulls. Do you think if three or more pitbulls attacked you and your family you might want to be in possession of something capable of quickly and efficiently defending against them?Schlzm

 

[jonessed]

The scariest thing about this thread is not simply that people still argue against these restrictions in the wake of the CT shooting, but that we get a look into the mental state of the people who are the ones with the guns. Especially these conceal carry types.

What's really scary is that in your zeal to have complete control of your surroundings you are so willing to strip trained, law abiding citizens of their rights.

Not saying this is you, but your statement made me think...Why is it the right wing is terrified of every "abnormal" behavior in people but they are fine with everyone carrying guns?

 

[tommyboy]

Seems obvious that most of the loudest voices in this thread have little or even zero practical knowledge of guns. I find that hilarious

 

[timschochet]

Yes, but you realize that most teachers are not gun nuts right? Some of them are sweet, little old ladies who have neither the desire nor the physical capabilities that might be needed to carry and use a firearm.

The simple, common sense solution is obviously to require all public school teachers to spend five years in a monastary in the far east being trainined in the Five Point Palm Exploding Heart technique. Well, either that or ban high-capacity magazines, but really the magazine thing is too complicated to be worthwhile.

I'm led to believe, based on info provided in this thread, that banning the magazines won't work because some of the crazy shooters are bad ### FBG types who can fire 100 rounds a second, change clips in the blink of an eye, and weld extra magazines onto their firearms.

Considering a few pages ago you couldn't articulate the differences between a semi-automatic and a fully automatic weapon I'm not so sure you are in a position to poke fun at people about their gun knowledge.

What I wrote is that the difference, in terms of rate of fire, seems negligible. As it turns out, it's more negligible than I supposed, which is why I may have changed my position on whether some of these semi-automatic weapons should be legal.

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

Do you think if three or more pitbulls attacked you and your family you might want to be in possession of something capable of quickly and efficiently defending against them?

Aaah yes, the three-or-more pitbull scenario. Happens all the time.