Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Opposite Of Conn.? Classroom Guns In S. Dakota  
User currently offlineCalebWilliams From United States of America, joined Dec 2008, 293 posts, RR: 0
Posted (1 year 4 months 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 3676 times:

South Dakota Law Will Allow Guns in Classrooms
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/09/us...ta-gun-law-classrooms.html?hp&_r=0

Quoting 'New York Times':

Gov. Dennis Daugaard of South Dakota on Friday signed into law a bill that would allow teachers to carry guns in the classroom.

While some other states have provisions in their gun laws that make it possible for teachers to be armed, South Dakota is believed to be the first state to pass a law that specifically allows teachers to carry firearms.

About two dozen states have proposed similar bills since the shootings in December at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn., but all of them have stalled.

Supporters say that the measure signed by Mr. Daugaard, a Republican, is important in a rural state like South Dakota, where some schools are many miles away from emergency responders.

Opponents, which have included the state school board association and teachers association, say this is a rushed measure that does not make schools safer.

The law says that school districts may choose to allow a school employee, hired security officer or volunteer to serve as a “sentinel” who can carry a firearm in the school. The law does not require school districts to do this.

Mr. Daugaard said he was comfortable with the law because it gave school districts the right to choose whether they wanted armed individuals in schools, and that those who were armed would have to undergo firearms training similar to what law enforcement officers received.

“I think it does provide the same safety precautions that a citizen expects when a law enforcement officer enters onto a premises,” Mr. Daugaard said in an interview. But he added that he did not think that many school districts would end up taking advantage of the measure.


Don't worry gun-nuts, South Dakota will protect your right to bear arms.   


Caleb Williams MSP AUS STL AMS CPH LGW YYZ
191 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineAeri28 From United States of America, joined Dec 2000, 704 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (1 year 4 months 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 3661 times:

I don't see an issue with it. Chances are many have already done so.

The Dakotas have always had an air of the old west.People in those places probably know a lot about guns and how to use and not to. I have family who live in Montana and in a very rural setting. They are mostly gun owners. That part of my family on my mothers side has always hunted and had 'protection' as well to protect property and family from animal and man in case.


User currently offlinefr8mech From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 5327 posts, RR: 14
Reply 2, posted (1 year 4 months 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 3663 times:

Quoting CalebWilliams (Thread starter):
Don't worry gun-nuts,

There you go..start right off by being insulting. That will always garner support for any argument you may put forth.

This is basically what I've proposed, and I wish the NRA would have proposed instead of armed guards.

All this law does is allow the school districts involved the option to have an armed guard at the school. They don't have to have one if they choose not to.

Personally, I feel the repeal of the federal gun-free zone statute (18 USC 922(q)) will go a long way at making our schools safer places.

I think we can all agree that criminals or those that wish to do harm will just walk by the sign that declares the area a gun-free zone. Why not allow a parent or teacher or administrator that is legally allowed to carry a gun, to do so, if she or he chooses to do so?



When seconds count...the police are minutes away. Never leave your cave without your club.
User currently offlineTheCommodore From Australia, joined Dec 2007, 2716 posts, RR: 8
Reply 3, posted (1 year 4 months 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 3646 times:

Quoting CalebWilliams (Thread starter):
South Dakota Law Will Allow Guns in Classrooms

Sad that its come to this.  Wow!  Wow!  Wow!

Oh, what a world we live in !!


Quoting fr8mech (Reply 2):
and I wish the NRA would have proposed instead of armed guards.

Don't you think that teachers should teach and guards should guard ?



Flown 905,468 kms or 2.356 times to the moon, 1296 hrs, Longest flight 10,524 kms
User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7787 posts, RR: 52
Reply 4, posted (1 year 4 months 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 3634 times:

Under very stringent and correct circumstances, I can see this being okay. But they need to do this carefully and safely...


Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently offlinerfields5421 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 7505 posts, RR: 32
Reply 5, posted (1 year 4 months 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 3629 times:

The biggest problem in schools with guns is how to teachers keep them secured under lock and key or on their person all the time.

Teachers have learned that anything which has a high pawn or underground sale value isn't safe in schools. Too many kids lift things from their teachers in today's schools.

Several folks in Texas are pushing the same thing - including the governor.


User currently offlineseb146 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 11469 posts, RR: 15
Reply 6, posted (1 year 4 months 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 3618 times:

Quoting CalebWilliams (Thread starter):
Don't worry gun-nuts, South Dakota will protect your right to bear arms.

The "right to bear arms" has nothing to do with carrying guns in school.

Studies have shown that more guns create more problems but fewer guns create fewer problems. I have no problem if people want to own guns. I do, however, care if people want to own multiple automatic weapons. What is one teacher with one gun going to do to stop one nut carrying an AR-15? Not only do teachers have to be psychologists and referees and parents as well as teachers but, now, they have to be police? And get no extra pay or benefits? What's wrong with this picture?



Life in the wall is a drag.
User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7787 posts, RR: 52
Reply 7, posted (1 year 4 months 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 3611 times:

Quoting seb146 (Reply 7):
I do, however, care if people want to own multiple automatic weapons.

1: do you even know what you're talking about when you say "automatic weapons" 2: what's wrong with more than one? If I had one and I occasionally maintained it, it would be as deadly as 50 automatic weapons... guns aren't something you can keep stacking one on top of another, you can really use only one... maybe if one jams, two, but the logic you're employing really doesn't make sense


I know you aren't barking up that tree... I see where you're going. Careful of what you say though, most people aren't going to get what you're saying and go a totally different direction, no fault of their own



Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently offlineSuperfly From Thailand, joined May 2000, 39660 posts, RR: 75
Reply 8, posted (1 year 4 months 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 3611 times:

Obama's children already go to school with armed guards. Their school had armed guards long before their dad was elected President. Not really sure why this is a big deal for some.


Bring back the Concorde
User currently offlineWestJet747 From Canada, joined Aug 2011, 1830 posts, RR: 10
Reply 9, posted (1 year 4 months 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 3606 times:

Quoting TheCommodore (Reply 3):
Don't you think that teachers should teach and guards should guard ?

I agree. I had many teachers in school who I wouldn't ever trust with a gun. If people in South Dakota really feel that they need protection in schools, they should hire someone to do it and let the teachers keep doing what they're doing.

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 8):
If I had one and I occasionally maintained it, it would be as deadly as 50 automatic weapons... guns aren't something you can keep stacking one on top of another, you can really use only one... maybe if one jams, two, but the logic you're employing really doesn't make sense

Well, I guess if you had some serious forearm strength, you could have one in each hand   



Flying refined.
User currently offlineseb146 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 11469 posts, RR: 15
Reply 10, posted (1 year 4 months 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 3597 times:

Quoting Superfly (Reply 8):
Their school had armed guards long before their dad was elected President. Not really sure why this is a big deal for some.

Private schools that can afford that sort of thing. But public schools that are constantly being de-funded by the right then given tons of guns? How can they suddenly afford firearms training but can not afford more teachers?

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 7):
I know you aren't barking up that tree... I see where you're going. Careful of what you say though, most people aren't going to get what you're saying and go a totally different direction, no fault of their own

Okay, then. What is the point of private citizens owning that many military grade weapons? To overthrow the government? I got news: They have been taking rights away by Patriot Act, among other bills. Why were the same people who were thrilled with Patriot Act now wanting to stockpile weapons and take arms against the government? These are the same people who said "Well, if you are doing nothing wrong, you should have no problem with them looking at your e-mail." What changed? Obama is in the White House.



Life in the wall is a drag.
User currently offlineSuperfly From Thailand, joined May 2000, 39660 posts, RR: 75
Reply 11, posted (1 year 4 months 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 3588 times:

Quoting seb146 (Reply 10):
Private schools that can afford that sort of thing.

I guess you didn't read the article. Sounds like you're implying that rich kids deserve to be protected but poor kids do not.   
You're also implying that if schools were flush with cash then you would support this idea. Yes? No?



Bring back the Concorde
User currently offlineMudboy From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 1167 posts, RR: 5
Reply 12, posted (1 year 4 months 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 3585 times:

I will never understand why there are people in this country, that will not be happy, until we are back to the "Old West"? I believe in having a gun in your home and your car as an extension of your home, but if I wanted to live in a country where everyone walks around with guns, I would move to Yemen or Pakistan.

What is a Teacher going to do, wear it on their side or keep it locked up? Who is going to pay for the training, the qualifying and maintaining of proficiency and the bonding? What happens when a Teacher forgets to lock it up and the curious little kids, pull it out and want to see it and someone gets shot? Before you blast me, I have been a Paramedic for 20 years and I have worked a few accidental shootings, that happened just like that at home and it is never nice seeing a little kid shot.

The subject of EMS being armed has come up recently and it is the same thing, who is going to foot the bill for all the training, maintaining of proficiency and bonding? You can't just leave it up to the individual, because if someone gets shot, you better be able to show that they were trained up, proficient and insured. People seem to think it is as simple as just giving someone a gun and letting them have at it, because of the 2nd Amendment, but do you understand the amount of training LEOs and Military have to go through to not only carry a weapon, but be able to defend someone from taking it from them? Also, what is going to be the escalation of force, does it just begin and end with the gun?


User currently offlineMaverick623 From United States of America, joined Nov 2006, 5554 posts, RR: 6
Reply 13, posted (1 year 4 months 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 3570 times:

Quoting TheCommodore (Reply 3):
Sad that its come to this. Wow! Wow! Wow!

Oh, what a world we live in !!

You've clearly never been to South Dakota.

Quoting seb146 (Reply 10):
What is the point of private citizens owning that many military grade weapons?

Define "military grade".



"PHX is Phoenix, PDX is the other city" -777Way
User currently offlinepvjin From Finland, joined Mar 2012, 1163 posts, RR: 3
Reply 14, posted (1 year 4 months 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 3552 times:

That's interesting, I wonder when the first case of teacher going nuts and shooting his/her students happens.


"A rational army would run away"
User currently offlineAeri28 From United States of America, joined Dec 2000, 704 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (1 year 4 months 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 3512 times:

Quoting pvjin (Reply 14):
That's interesting, I wonder when the first case of teacher going nuts and shooting his/her students happens.

You make it sound like having a gun in a Dakota classroom is something new... ? What makes you think a gun has not 'unofficially' been in classrooms already? Like I mentinoed in my post way above, it's probably already been done for decades. If you don't understand how life is led in many of the outreaches of the Dakotas and has been for decades, that comment sounds like those reactions vis a vis your views on gun controls in the US.


Again, those areas have a different view, history and appreciation of guns than most of us on this forum have. My view is fit the law to the environment. Personally I have a differnet view of guns in cities, large urban areas vs. those in far flung towns and counties with sparse populations. I think decisions should be a county (county not country) decision.

My mothers side of the family live on the Ft. Peck Indian Reservation in North eastern Montana. I don't think I'd even feel remotely safe if some uncle or auntie did not have a gun somewhere. Tribal police may not be responsive as one would like either. Again, fit the law to the circumstances I say.


User currently offlinecmf From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 16, posted (1 year 4 months 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 3494 times:

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 2):
Personally, I feel the repeal of the federal gun-free zone statute (18 USC 922(q)) will go a long way at making our schools safer places.

Like promoting having sex to avoid pregnancy. Suggest motorcycle drivers don't use helmets to avoid head injury. Walking in the middle of the road to avoid cars hitting you on the sidewalk.

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 2):
I think we can all agree that criminals or those that wish to do harm will just walk by the sign that declares the area a gun-free zone. Why not allow a parent or teacher or administrator that is legally allowed to carry a gun, to do so, if she or he chooses to do so?

Your logic makes several assumptions that you need to prove

* You suggest criminals do not care about an area being gun free zone. That the risk of standing out with a weapon doesn't have an effect.

* You suggest (in other threads) an area being gun free makes it attractive to those committing crimes. When it is very likely they reason they choose that place is the same reason why the area became a gun free zone.

* You suggest "good armed people" will reduce damages from "bad armed people" more than they will create damages from accidents.

In short, you suggest gun free zones cause there to be more shootings. Provide the stats that the balance is on that side.

Quoting rfields5421 (Reply 5):
Teachers have learned that anything which has a high pawn or underground sale value isn't safe in schools. Too many kids lift things from their teachers in today's schools.

  

Then add the unavoidable accidents.

Quoting Superfly (Reply 8):
Obama's children already go to school with armed guards

Obama's kids can't run down to the public playground because some people make them their target for their hate of Obama...


User currently offlinefr8mech From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 5327 posts, RR: 14
Reply 17, posted (1 year 4 months 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 3485 times:

Quoting seb146 (Reply 6):
What is one teacher with one gun going to do to stop one nut carrying an AR-15?


That one teacher may well interrupt a delay the asshole and save lives in the process. Otherwise, that one teacher may just sit and be a victim.

Quoting TheCommodore (Reply 3):
Don't you think that teachers should teach and guards should guard ?


Yes, I do. But, I would rather have a dozen armed teachers and/or administers and visiting parents than one or two guards walking around. Don't get me wrong, there is a deterrent factor there, but, if someone decides to shoot up a school, those visible guards may well be the first to go.

Quoting Mudboy (Reply 12):
Who is going to pay for the training, the qualifying and maintaining of proficiency and the bonding?


That's assuming the school districts hire these people and puts them on the payroll as guards in addition to being teachers. I say lift the restrictions and if someone wants to carry, let them, assuming they are eligible to carry under state law. I will submit that any teacher carrying be required to inform the appropriate administrator that he is carrying and a reasonable, responsible storage/carry plan be implemented.

Quoting pvjin (Reply 14):
I wonder when the first case of teacher going nuts and shooting his/her students happens


There is the assumption that gun carrying people are a crappy Happy Meal away from shooting the place up. What's to prevent that very same teacher from bringing the gun to school today and shooting the place up?

Quoting cmf (Reply 16):
* You suggest criminals do not care about an area being gun free zone. That the risk of standing out with a weapon doesn't have an effect.


Sandy Elementary. The Century Movie Theatre in Aurora. Virginia Tech. Amish School in Nickel Mines, PA. Fort Hood, TX. Hartford Distributors, CT. Any US Post Office shooting.

All these places were gun-free zones by statue or policy. Didn't seem slow these guys down.

Quoting cmf (Reply 16):
In short, you suggest gun free zones cause there to be more shootings. Provide the stats that the balance is on that side.

Actually, I don't suggest that. I suggest that the shooters have an easier time of it in gun-free zones.

Quoting cmf (Reply 16):
* You suggest "good armed people" will reduce damages from "bad armed people" more than they will create damages from accidents.


You're right, I do suggest that. Accidents happen when firearms are handled (or mishandled). A properly holstered firearm is about as dangerous as a brick. My suggestion is that an asshole intent on killing several people is confronted by someone with a gun that asshole's attention will be shifted to the armed person. It's my position that when that attention shifts, innocent lives are saved and the clock ticks closer to an armed response by police.

Tell me; why have police departments shifted to an active shooter protocol or Immediate Action Rapid Deployment techniques. Because they know that the sooner a shooter is disrupted, the lower likely-hood of high casualties.

[Edited 2013-03-09 06:19:13]


When seconds count...the police are minutes away. Never leave your cave without your club.
User currently offlinerfields5421 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 7505 posts, RR: 32
Reply 18, posted (1 year 4 months 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 3464 times:

Quoting seb146 (Reply 6):
What is one teacher with one gun going to do to stop one nut carrying an AR-15?

Lets use Columbine and Sandy Hook as contrasting examples.

Columbine had a full time armed police officer on the campus. Five minutes after the shooting started there were already two dead and ten wounded when the officer was able to reach the scene, but was outside the building. The officer exchanged shots with one of the shooters, who ducked back into the building without either one being hit.

Four minutes later the first external police officers arrived on the scene. There had been another brief exchange of fire between the school based deputy who was by his car in the parking lot and one of the shooters in the building.

A teacher (coach) was shot about this time as he approached the gunmen. Would him having a weapon allowed him to possible take down one or both of the shooters? We will never know. We do know he was shot and died later in the afternoon.

The armed SWAT team and many more officers arrived on the scene quickly.

The school resource officer and the majority of the officers arriving on the scene did not enter the school building because they had no protective armor/ vests.

The SWAT team did not enter the building until at least a half-hour after the last exchange of gunfire - and all the student victims were dead or had been shot. The gunmen committed suicide, apparently based on their plan, two minutes after the SWAT team entered the building, but were not in contact with the SWAT team. There is no indication they knew the police had entered the building.

-----------------------------

Sandy Hook

The shooter used his AR-15 to shoot out a locked glass door and enter the school. The school principal and the school psychologist heard the gun shots, apparently recognized them and charged to confront the gunman. They were both killed. Would they have been able to hit the gunman if they had weapons? Likely, but we will never know.

The first two police officers arriving at Sandy Hook entered the school without protective vests and saw the gunman. He ducked into a room before they could fire, and shot himself.

-----------------------------

I'm not saying I like the idea of armed teachers, but teachers/ school staff confronted both gunmen very early in the shooting. Any armed person confronting the gunman/men in either instance could have gotten off a couple shots even if the person had an AR-15 configured for full automatic. They might have hit the gunman.

It takes a LOT of practice to be even partially accurate with an automatic weapon. Even the military teaches people to not fire on full automatic - because you cannot reliably hit anything. Fire three shot bursts.

All the TV and movie firing of weapons you see on automatic is pure BS. The weapons rise when fired. Even Arnold in his prime could not have held a Thompson sub-machine gun on target on full automatic. You use full automatic to make the other people duck. Not to hit anyone.

Full automatic is also a great opportunity for the person trying to take down the person firing on full automatic. Because you will know when the magazine is empty and you will have 5 to 15 seconds to aim and carefully place a killing shot.

In the Columbine case, the coach/teacher saw the gunmen were shooting. In the Sandy Hook case, the principal and psychologist had heard shots and literally saw an armed man holding a smoking gun.

Would they have fired if they had a weapon? I think so.

Would they have been effective? In Columbine - I really doubt it. They were too well prepared. At Sandy Hook with two school staff against one shooter - probably they could have stopped the murders of the children.

But that is just my guess.

Quoting seb146 (Reply 6):
Not only do teachers have to be psychologists and referees and parents as well as teachers but, now, they have to be police?

I don't see anything requiring them to be police. It looks like the Texas proposed law - allowing those who choose to do so to have weapons.

Personally, I see armed teachers as a greater risk to students than unarmed teachers.

The teachers will literally have to carry the guns with them at all times, and that won't happen.


User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7787 posts, RR: 52
Reply 19, posted (1 year 4 months 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 3449 times:

Quoting seb146 (Reply 10):
Okay, then. What is the point of private citizens owning that many military grade weapons? To overthrow the government? I got news: They have been taking rights away by Patriot Act, among other bills. Why were the same people who were thrilled with Patriot Act now wanting to stockpile weapons and take arms against the government? These are the same people who said "Well, if you are doing nothing wrong, you should have no problem with them looking at your e-mail." What changed? Obama is in the White House.

I don't really know where you are going with this, I can ask where the people against Gitmo and the Patriot Act went, and "What changed? Obama is in the White House." goes the other way. Did you protest Gitmo and the Patriot Act? If you did, why did you stop?

About stockpiling, I don't know any of the survivalist types, I'm sure there are nuts out there, but I have a few just because I like to collect them and shoot them and that is what my friends do too. Why have more than one? IDK why collect anything?

Minus David Koresh and a few other notable examples, the people that have a bunch of scary assault weapons aren't the ones you should be concerned about... it is the common thug or angry Joe that has a single handgun. They do most of the shooting. When my friends with a bunch of 'assault rifles' get pissed, they don't arm a mob and go shooting up a place... not too sure where you keep going with the stockpiling

Quoting rfields5421 (Reply 18):
It takes a LOT of practice to be even partially accurate with an automatic weapon. Even the military teaches people to not fire on full automatic - because you cannot reliably hit anything. Fire three shot bursts.

Partially true. The reason they don't teach fully auto M-16/M-4 shooting is because the ones we have now aren't designed for fully auto, 3 round burst isn't actually holding the trigger down and stopping after 3 rounds have gone off.

And there is plenty of fully auto training with M249s, M240Bs, and M2s. The methodology isn't spray and pray, it's a lot more controlled

I don't know why we're even talking about fully automatic, they are very rare even in the US and it's not easy to convert. There are simple ways to do it that usually result in killing yourself or have a gun that doesn't stop firing until the magazine is empty (even if you let your finger off the trigger) but no practical way

Quoting rfields5421 (Reply 18):
5 to 15 seconds

??
Even a novice can change a magazine quicker than that. Release mag button, grab a new one, insert it, slide release, ready

Sorry rfields5421, probably being a bit too nitpicky today

[Edited 2013-03-09 08:27:31]


Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 19278 posts, RR: 58
Reply 20, posted (1 year 4 months 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 3430 times:

Within a couple of years, a teacher will have some sort of break and kill a classroom full of kids.

And the gun advocates will claim that more guns are the solution.


User currently offlineCalebWilliams From United States of America, joined Dec 2008, 293 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (1 year 4 months 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 3428 times:

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 2):
There you go..start right off by being insulting. That will always garner support for any argument you may put forth.

I wasn't talking you. You have the ability to actually a make a competent argument for your point of view. I was referring to those that can't: real gun "nuts."

Your opinions may be more extreme than mine, but you can make a solid defense for those opinions, using facts and such.

Quoting rfields5421 (Reply 5):

The biggest problem in schools with guns is how to teachers keep them secured under lock and key or on their person all the time.

Teachers have learned that anything which has a high pawn or underground sale value isn't safe in schools. Too many kids lift things from their teachers in today's schools.

We had a hard enough time in high school keeping the city bus tokens safe. Let alone a gun.

[Edited 2013-03-09 09:35:48]


Caleb Williams MSP AUS STL AMS CPH LGW YYZ
User currently offlinerfields5421 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 7505 posts, RR: 32
Reply 22, posted (1 year 4 months 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 3415 times:

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 19):
d there is plenty of fully auto training with M249s, M240Bs, and M2s.

Yes, I've had that training. But those are tripod/ bi-pod machine guns, not suitable for a mobile shooter carrying his weapon as we've seen in school shootings.

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 19):
Even a novice can change a magazine quicker than that.

Sure in a training situation.

However in first high pressure situation in a combat mode - not likely. I've personally seen trained US Marines take longer than that to change magazines in combat the first time. When my son was in Iraq in 2003, close to 1/3 of his army unit expended zero rounds in their first firefight.

Both the Columbine shooters were observed to be fumbling while changing magazines early in the shooting. That allowed several of the wounded to get to safety. They were the best prepared of all the school shooters.

But the point is that there is a chance to take down the shooter if one has training.

I doubt any of the teachers could have done so, but it was possible.

There is a mental requirement to be able to fire at another person immediately and without question. In these school shootings, verbal warnings, warning shots, etc would have only put the teacher in greater danger.

Not many people have the ability to shoot to kill the first time they encounter a dangerous situation. (I actually think the principal might have been able to do so - the mother protecting her cubs instinct - but we don't really know.)

I really think the only thing that guns in the classroom will do besides allowing more guns to be stolen is ensure that the teachers are killed first while they hesitate to fire.


User currently offlinefr8mech From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 5327 posts, RR: 14
Reply 23, posted (1 year 4 months 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 3407 times:

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 20):
Within a couple of years, a teacher will have some sort of break and kill a classroom full of kids.

What prevents that from happening now? What is keeping a teacher from bringing a gun to school now? A sign? A law?

Quoting CalebWilliams (Reply 21):
I wasn't talking you.

But, you can see where your statement was a blanket statement aimed at gun owners in general. I'm a fan of civil debate and do my damndest to keep from calling people names. Though, in these threads I do call the killers "assholes". I will refrain from doing that.

Quoting rfields5421 (Reply 18):
The teachers will literally have to carry the guns with them at all times, and that won't happen.


I agree, there is risk here, but I think allowing a teacher and the school administrators to jointly make the risk/benefit analysis is the right way to go. They know their school and students better than anyone else. If they decide to that allowing a teacher to be armed in class isn't worth the risk, that's fine...but let them make the call.

Further, allowing parents and visitors to the school that have already been granted a carry license from their state of residence to come on school grounds allows an extra layer of defense that may just tip the balance against the attacker.

[Edited 2013-03-09 10:50:37]

[Edited 2013-03-09 10:51:42]


When seconds count...the police are minutes away. Never leave your cave without your club.
User currently offlinerfields5421 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 7505 posts, RR: 32
Reply 24, posted (1 year 4 months 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 3394 times:

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 23):
Further, allowing parents and visitors to the school that have already been granted a carry license from their state of residence to come on school grounds allows an extra layer of defense that may just tip the balance against the attacker.

I strongly disagree with this idea.

The school, and the police responding to any incident need to know exactly who has weapons on the school property.

Parents have never been involved in any of the school shootings to my knowledge - if they have, please let me know.

Any parents inside a school with a weapon are likely to be taken down by police as they will be mistaken as the shooter by police. At the very best, any parents with weapons in the school are going to delay police from confronting the shooter because they will have to be identified and moved out of the area.

And I don't think anyone can come up with a worse case scenario than parents hear of an incident at their children's school and respond with their weapons.


25 kiwirob : I can't see how this is going to make any difference? Dude walks into a classroom and starts shooting, the teacher will probably be target no. 1, they
26 Post contains links fr8mech : Who said anything about a parent responding? Ideally, by the time some incident hits the news, the event will be over. At my kids' school there are a
27 DocLightning : Yes. The fact that they are not absolutely deranged and wouldn't bring a firearm into their classrooms for fear of discovery. But when the firearm is
28 DeltaMD90 : I agree with this. That is why I think that registration wouldn't be pointless... people say criminals wouldn't register guns. But a lot of times, th
29 fr8mech : Again, who said every teacher? Those that are licensed and choose to carry, with the blessing of the administrator. We allow it on the flight deck, d
30 Geezer : The very first thing we hear out of anyone on the left who are all so "terrified" by guns, is ALWAYS........anyone who owns a gun is a "nut". What I
31 Mudboy : Every person that carries a gun as a LEO or an Armed Security Guard has to be bonded, it is not as simple as allowing a person to carry a firearm. Yo
32 fr8mech : In that case, I would assume the school district would assume the cost. From the article: The law says that school districts may choose to allow a sc
33 Mudboy : For the record, I am not nor ever will be, "on the left". I only have my opinion on this because of what I have seen in my career. I am only trying t
34 Post contains images cmf : By listing those events you suggest they would not have happened if it wasn't for the gun free zone. Love to see evedince for that theory. Do they? D
35 WestJet747 : But the Columbine shooters weren't trained whatsoever, were they? (or is that the point you're trying to make?) I agree with rfields in his response
36 CalebWilliams : Again, as posed in the other thread: can you prove that restricting guns leads to more violence or rather does the existing violence lead to more res
37 DeltaMD90 : No one can because the answer is way more complex than more guns = less crime or less guns = more crime. If the answer was black and white there woul
38 Geezer : No, I'm not missing anything; and nothing in the above has the slightest bearing on what I said; I have ZERO interest in what happens in Australia; I
39 CalebWilliams : That's great that you're well informed, but please prove your assertion that gun restrictions lead to higher gun crime.
40 cmf : Some people just need to reinvent the wheel over and over. Other learn from what others have done. In this Rome the rule is that you must respect the
41 CalebWilliams : We Americans are a stubborn bunch.
42 Aesma : When a gunfight occurs, even policemen end up shooting bystanders in the US (I don't know about my own country, except that gunfights are avoided if p
43 seb146 : The "voucher systems" for "education" always trying to be "implimented" by the "right" is a "good start". People who attend "gun shows" and "straw pu
44 TheCommodore : And this, coming from an American ! Have you checked what your countries foreign polices are lately ? Have a GOOD look at All the meddling the US eng
45 GSPflyer : I agree with this law, as long as the teachers are required to have training, and to keep their gun on their person to reduce the chance of a student
46 Post contains links and images fr8mech : I'm not suggesting they wouldn't have happened. I'm suggesting they may have ended sooner, and with lower casualty counts, had folks that are deemed
47 KaiGywer : I agree with retention. While my duty holster is a triple retention holster, my off duty holster still has a single retention.
48 DeltaMD90 : This is really the question here. Will the deaths that may be prevented here with this legislation outweigh the deaths of a teacher(s) going postal?
49 fr8mech : While I'm not opposed to addtional training or requirements, I do have one concern that is echoed by Mudboy, among others. When you lay on additional
50 DeltaMD90 : I think that should be up to the school. I'd hope the school would be involved, not just "carry what you want, good luck." Maybe have the schools dec
51 fr8mech : That one parent may well be the difference bewtween someone confronting the a shooter immediately or waiting for a police response. Again, the sooner
52 DeltaMD90 : Yes but my point is: does this gained benefit outweigh the negatives? You know I'm hardly anti-gun but I've gotta be realistic here, there are a lot
53 fr8mech : I agree, you have to do a risk analysis and decide if the practice is right for the particular school. Right now, in most states, the power resides w
54 DeltaMD90 : I agree, I'm for more local and state solutions
55 seb146 : I don't understand driving around with a gun in your car, but if you are the legal owner, it should not be an issue. My main point is: if there is, a
56 CalebWilliams : While I have no what ages your child(ren) are, and despite that fact that I disagree with you on some issues, I do congratulate you on your involveme
57 fr8mech : If the gun is on my person and I'm in my car, then the gun is in the car. But, it is an issue. If I happen to be driving in IN, where my KY permit is
58 DeltaMD90 : Schools can do what they wish. I am not too keen of anything federal... you know how that goes. If a school board wants to spend money on a bit of tr
59 Post contains images futurepilot16 : So if i'm going from my house to the gas station. is my gun gonna teleport to the gas station as opposed to going with me in my car on drive to the g
60 Mudboy : That is what I am trying to get people to understand, there are those that seem to think that just because you have the 2nd Amendment and a CCW, all
61 seb146 : If you are just going to the gas station, why do you need your gun? I can understand if you are going hunting or target practice or you are police, b
62 futurepilot16 : If I'm just driving to the gas station why do I need airbags? If i'm just driving to the gas station why do I need a seatbelt? 99.9% of the time I go
63 seb146 : Federal law is different than state law. Why is private health insurance honored in some states but not others? States rights? Some of those "willing
64 DeltaMD90 : When I say "let schools decide" I am talking more about state and local governments. Your tax dollars won't really go to schools in GA for example. (
65 fr8mech : Maybe the current law being discussed in SD, but I'm talking in a greater sense. Allowing a teacher or administrator to carry without any additional
66 cmf : What legal jeopardy? What is so difficult about avoiding schools when you carry?
67 fr8mech : Because a school zone is bigger than the school. A school zone extends 1,000 feet beyond the school property. Pick out a couple of schools on Google
68 seb146 : Right. California schools have been cutting back for a long time now. So have Oregon schools. Why is it now so important to arm teachers and hire gua
69 CalebWilliams : You've hit the nail on the head. Many gun rights activists carry because they can and because there is no practical reason to do so.
70 KaiGywer : Which is your choice. Same as others should have the choice to carry if they want to. Or for gay people to get married if they want to...or to have a
71 Mudboy : Please name one profession now, where you can be armed, that you do not have to meet a standard of training or be bonded before you can carry a deadl
72 DeltaMD90 : Well, yes, my point is vote for what you want for CA or OR (forgot which state you're in) and people in GA can vote for what they want for GA. Federa
73 cmf : The law is clear that it doesn't apply in that situation. I personally would have drawn the line as school property but the objections you make are n
74 fr8mech : Sometimes it's as easy as that. And, that is your choice. You are free to not exercise your rights as much as I'm free to exercise my rights. That's
75 cmf : That is perfectly clear. No it doesn't. And if you're not happy with their decision you have a jury. I'm not aware there has been a lot of arrests be
76 seb146 : still don't get it. I am not on my way to target practice. I am not on my way to get food. I am not on my way to sniper terrorists. Just driving arou
77 fr8mech : You're right, you don't get it. I'm sure there are things you do that make me shake my head. There is no "thrill". Why must there be a "thrill"? Do y
78 Smittyone : My wife is a teacher - drives an hour to work through some wooded areas in the dark and then comes home in the dark. It bothers me to think about her
79 seb146 : FINALLY!! Once scenario I can agree that a gun in the car on school grounds is acceptable! Earlier, someone pointed out that "just driving around" is
80 Smittyone : For better or worse, the Supreme Court has supported a broader interpretation (I'm sure people have mentioned the applicable decision). Until they ru
81 Post contains images cmf : This is how the rights given by the second amendment are abused. Very few people live under conditions where carrying a weapon provide more safety th
82 Smittyone : I agree that this is true. But I also think that what makes something a 'right' is that the individual is free to make that determination...unless th
83 Post contains images DeltaMD90 : Well then, you and I agree. My whole point is that I'd rather have the states decide rather than the federal government. If Georgia wants to be armed
84 Post contains images fr8mech : Where exactly did I even allude to that? By your reasoning, I should throw away my fire extinguishers because we haven't had a fire in this sub-divis
85 Post contains links cmf : Where did I argue they should not have the right to carry? I did argue that it is very rare that you are safer with a gun than without. That just abo
86 DeltaMD90 : I know those stats... I already have said time and time again that I'm for good measures to help reduce accidents. Mixed in with the responsible peop
87 fr8mech : We've all seen the study and accept its conclusion that if you have a gun in the home you are more likely to be injured (or killed) by someone using
88 Smittyone : Did not mean to imply this. I figured that what I see as the distinction between 'right vs. priviledge' was worth mentioning in light of your point.
89 cmf : Read the report. It doesn't matter how safe you are. So don't argue that you carry for safety. And you have to make it a left/right thing again. It i
90 fr8mech : I don't think I've ever argued that I carry a gun to feel safe. Or that I own guns to feel safe. I own and carry to provide myself with options shoul
91 cmf : How does that not fall under the description of "for safety"? No, you should not have made the comment. Even with a smiley it would just have been an
92 fr8mech : So, you've lost your sense of humor? The comment was made tongue-in-cheek. I apologize that you were offended. Because, whether I leave the house wit
93 cmf : Hardly. How is "options" not "for safety"?
94 fr8mech : Option: The act of choosing; choice. See Synonyms at choice. The power or freedom to choose. The exclusive right, usually obtained for a fee, to buy
95 seb146 : And I am sure a lot of gun owners have that same list. Problem is: some of them ignore that when faced with crisis. Not all of them. There are those
96 fr8mech : Really? Where did I make it sound that way? Please quote. I live in the suburbs of a fairly low-crime city (though, we're up & coming). I drive a
97 Post contains images DeltaMD90 : I think you are mixing up my 2 lists. My top list is normal, "non-crisis" everyday life. My 2nd list is more controversial, because a gun may embolde
98 cmf : Your condescending attitude doesn't help and I am still at a total loss as to why you would like to have the additional options provided by a gun if
99 seb146 : That's what I mean: That grandmother who shot her granddaughter because the grandmother didn't know the girl was out. Some people will simply open fi
100 DeltaMD90 : Ah I see. A great, simple gem I heard is "just because you have a gun doesn't mean you have to use it." It's really great advice and it really made m
101 Smittyone : As recently advocated by the Vice President. Head of the team figuring out what to do about gun violence. Agreed, but it doesn't seem to be happening
102 fr8mech : I guess you can ask that question to the folks in Newton or Aurora or Tuscon or Virginia Tech or all the other myriad of places around the country wh
103 CalebWilliams : I've heard of some aggressive coyotes here in Minnesota. A hunter friend of mine was out with a bow and arrow (may have had a revolver too) and start
104 Smittyone : Agreed, until they give the government some specific reason to take that right away. Even if most of us end up making the risk/benefit calculation in
105 seb146 : These statements bother me. There are those who allude to taking on the government because the government is suspending the Constitution and we need
106 cmf : So now it is to give you an option in cases such as Newtown, etc. but somehow it is not about safety.... Do something habitually and you get sloppy.
107 fr8mech : Let me put it to you this way...do you feel safer when you walk into your home and you know that you have a fire extinguisher? I'll argue that a fire
108 seb146 : Like a spouse or child sneaking into the house in the middle of the night or rednecks who leave their firearms out where any kids can get to them. Th
109 Smittyone : Seb146 - I don't buy into the government overthrow hysteria either. I'm a military officer and that would pose a bit of a conflict with my oath now w
110 Post contains images cmf : Yes I do. You need to narrow it down to very unusual circumstances to be in the area where using a fire extinguisher mean you sustain serious injury
111 seb146 : That does not work, does it? Minors get their hands on weapons, druggies get their hands on weapons, and so forth. I still have not had a reasonable
112 Smittyone : To be crystal clear: I don't advocate overthrowing the government over gun rights. But disarming the populace would sure make it harder to do so shou
113 PanHAM : Good idea. In certain parts of Berlin, teachers would love to carry guns into class rooms. That would give them respect with certain pupils.
114 Smittyone : Fr8mech, I recommend you 'pop smoke' and get out of this discussion now with your sanity intact. Your analogy equating firearms accidents to industri
115 fr8mech : Are you guys being obtuse, just to be obtuse? In a safety culture, we try not to use the word accident, because in many minds accidents are things th
116 Darksnowynight : Don't take this personally since I'd say this to anyone who says that. But honestly, the only way to admire those men is to not really know much abou
117 Smittyone : Well written post! I don't have time to do nearly as good of a job expressing myself as you have done but FWIW here are a couple of my thoughts: I th
118 seb146 : This is what I am talking about: People who run around with the mentality of "Well, it could happen, so we better train for it now!" Well, sure, I co
119 Smittyone : Here's something that Admiral Chester Nimitz sent to his commanders after a typhoon caught the fleet unprepared. I think it's applicable to many aspe
120 fr8mech : Did the person have the proper footwear? Was there another path to follow? Was the person distracted? Is there a floor problem? Had Facilities been i
121 Smittyone : I've given this some more thought, and figured out exactly why this assertion does not hold water in my mind. The 10 amendments that make up the Bill
122 seb146 : What people forget is: The Bill Of Rights was penned when this country was young. We had just left the Monarchy and were setting out on our own. We w
123 DeltaMD90 : Seb146 and cmf, I do have to disagree with you two regarding the whole accident thing. I mean I guess they can be considered accidents and we can argu
124 Smittyone : You're free to see it however you like, but for those who use the words "incident" and "accident" in a more professional sense when they are talking
125 Post contains links Darksnowynight : Yup. Those classifications exist for a reason. On the surface, yes. But we need to understand that I say what I do not to hold them accountable for a
126 DeltaMD90 : What? Where have I said that? Firearms are definitely not for everybody, and even after training I think some people are better without them I've alr
127 Smittyone : Bahaha yes I got this far and feel thusly rewarded. That is hilarious. Thanks for your posts, good stuff to grind on the intellectual stone.
128 fr8mech : Edited to clear post. I decided I would wait for another thread on gun control sure to start as the various legislative intitiatives perculate through
129 seb146 : Lately, that has not been at the front of their agenda. I agree with safe handling of weapons. But, Wayne LaPierre has been advocating that more guns
130 Post contains images DeltaMD90 : I doubt you have any evidence to back this up I can make an educated guess that the people that actually follow the NRA's safe handling advice very v
131 Darksnowynight : I can read. And everything you've written says that your ideas on the matter are a fair bit less restrictive than are mine. What, for example, do you
132 fr8mech : Advocating firearms ownership has always been a priority for the NRA, along with firearms safety. Really? I wonder if you can provide a source for th
133 DeltaMD90 : I believe in honesty, so I'll admit that I did forget about one friend who is an NRA supporter and terrible with guns. He got his bad habits from his
134 seb146 : That proves my point. I know there are responsible members of NRA but there are also irresponsible members of NRA. Those irresponsible ones run aroun
135 fr8mech : Of course, they're a lobbying organization, no different than the hundreds that circle the capital. Yes, they represent the manufacturers, but I see
136 DeltaMD90 : Eh, I've seen a fair share of responsible firearms owners saying some pretty dumb things, I don't think responsibility and some of the crazy talk hav
137 FlyDeltaJets : Guards and teachers are not the same thing. That law does not prevent licenced owners from carrying in that school zone. All I say is a person with a
138 Darksnowynight : I think you can read too, and if so, you'll see that's not what I said. But let's be clear about something. As far as I'm concerned, it's on the tabl
139 fr8mech : It depends on the state and how they process their permits. It absolutely makes it illegal for a permit holder from one state to enter a GFSZ in anot
140 SmittyOne : As have I without religion. Shall we generalize my experience across the population also? To take it one step further, for reasons that are beyond th
141 fr8mech : Didn't see this earlier (I blame my 5 mile run as it has drained me of my energy reserves). I've gone 44 years without needing a gun. There's a high
142 Post contains links seb146 : Just the fact that you are expecting to be murdered speaks volumes. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Rifle_Association They started off as a mar
143 Post contains links fr8mech : Really? Once again, I don't own a fire extinguisher because I expect to be in a fire...I don't have homeowners' because I expect my home to be destro
144 DeltaMD90 : You posted the Wikipedia article then immediately said the above quote... I see that NO WHERE in the article you posted. All I'm seeing is they encou
145 seb146 : Their only proposal is more guns. How does that not mean they are looking out for gun manufacturers? That statement negates itself. We do. I just wan
146 DeltaMD90 : I think I see where you're getting at. I think they're saying that a well armed society is safer than a less armed one. I know a lot of people with t
147 seb146 : I don't hear the NRA saying "don't let the crazies get the guns." But, rather, "guns are the answer!" I don't want crazies with guns. Or knives. Or a
148 fr8mech : It means looking out for the general population...it may be incidental that guns have to be manufactured in order for someone to buy one. I want a lo
149 Darksnowynight : Ok guys, sorry for the delay. I got caught in a very important Nap. Onward... While I understand where you're coming from here, my position is that we
150 Post contains links fr8mech : Tell that to the folks in Newton, Aurora, Tucson, Blacksburg, etc. What about: Tampa West Allis Kansas City or, more tragically: Dayton Kansas City C
151 Post contains links cmf : The right wing battle cry. Always make a statement about some hidden agenda. That they want to take something away from you. The focus on "crazies" i
152 Post contains links and images fr8mech : It's not hidden. It pops out in unguarded moments, you just need to listen. http://www.examiner.com/article/dem-...ult-weapons-ban-just-the-beginning
153 cmf : Ahh, always overreactions pushing the fear propaganda. I think most people want to see better gun control and with most crimes committed with handgun
154 CalebWilliams : Fortunately, the majority of people, gun owners and NRA members support background checks. Such as fr8mech has stated a number of times. We're beatin
155 cmf : As you say, the majority of people do support background checks, now. However, it wasn't long ago we had many people stating that they should only be
156 fr8mech : Sorry, using my iPad and can't quote selected text. How will we accomplish background checks without involving a licensed dealer? And, without incurr
157 cmf : ??? What does this have to do with if private sale should require background checks? They certainly happen frequently enough without dealers involved
158 Post contains links fr8mech : http://www.njherald.com/story/216256...ck-gun-debate-deals-in-moldy-stats I argued this a while back...old data before the widespread use of the NICS.
159 cmf : I think she said dealing with handguns was a later issue. I did not see her say banning. Castle Laws. Step by step they are eroding the requirements
160 fr8mech : Not quite an immunity. It's called an affirmative defense, or some such thing. The burden would still be upon me to show that I had a reasonable fear
161 cmf : Make no mistake... total immunity is what they are after. You have to admire the long term view they have taken on this. It has been many decades but
162 Darksnowynight : Unless you're a bully or a criminal, you don't have that need. You have police available if there is a problem. Otherwise, don't escalate the situati
163 Smittyone : That's one way to look at it. The other way is this: We all voluntarily surrender some degree of latitude in our personal actions and decision making
164 fr8mech : So, what's the name of that police officer you have living with you? I mean, if someone enters your home, without your permission, I assume you have
165 Smittyone : Agreed. Out on the street the competing rights of many people intersect, and life is complicated. Inside a person's home it is simple. One has the ri
166 cmf : problem is that you take a big set of data and narrow down to one extreme situation and say - Look, because of this you should ignore everything else
167 fr8mech : We have somehow gotten on a discussion of the Castle Doctrine. To assume that it will be used when an intruder enters your home is certainly an extre
168 cmf : You keep dancing around. I asked a direct question and you kept dancing. Now your answer is that you're loose with your usage of words yet you consta
169 Darksnowynight : While I do agree with what you are saying here, for me, it's just too theoretical. As I mentioned above, one of my main concerns with just anyone hav
170 fr8mech : Reading what I wrote, I left out a key word: I left out the word "not". To assume that it (the Castle Doctrine) will be used when an intruder enters
171 Darksnowynight : I'm not sure why you're so interested in de-humanizing the victim by bringing race into this. In any case... Yeah, there really isn't a lot of public
172 seb146 : There would be much more data on this but NRA fought to get any funding for that taken away. BTW, anyone in support of the "Castle doctrine" have any
173 Post contains links fr8mech : All I did was Google "police are not obligated to protect you". http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/politics/28scotus.html?_r=0 http://en.wikipedia.org
174 FlyDeltaJets : Many states don't allow a permit holder to carry anywhere in their state without a permit issued in their state. A valid point was raised regarding a
175 FlyDeltaJets : They are not constitutionally required to protect you as you are not constitutionally required to do the work that you do on your job, but if there i
176 fr8mech : The argument is a little more complex than that. I know plenty of officers that put themselves in harm's way everyday "protecting" the citizens. Ther
177 FlyDeltaJets : All arming the staff will do is add more guns. Without tactical training you add another shooter to the mix that while attempting to do good may unde
178 fr8mech : It's not cowardly. In the majority of cases, it's probably the best of action. But, what if you're in the line of fire? What if you're willing to put
179 cmf : Last thing we need are people trying to be heroes. It sounds great that time everything works out but reality is that it is much more likely to go th
180 fr8mech : So, sit back, hide and hope that the police get to the shooter before he does too much damage or gets to you? Sorry, I'm not wired that way. It's ok
181 cmf : When you create much more danger while waiting for that extremely unlikely moment where a hero mentality is the right choice, absolutely.
182 Darksnowynight : Ok, so a few things. From your own cite... Looks like it actually is their job to protect you. Unless perhaps you're not a member of the Public? Ther
183 Post contains links fr8mech : Awesome attempt at selective quoting from the article. Shall we read the whole sentence? The public-duty doctrine holds that the government and its o
184 Darksnowynight : Are we not a member of the Public? And you really want to play that game? Ok, here we go for starters... Liable. What does that mean to you? They hav
185 fr8mech : Sure, I can play the game, since you selectively read and quote. You did read that this circumstance is an exception to "public-duty doctrine", since
186 Post contains images Darksnowynight : You better believe you are. You've completely written off the idea of calling the police so you can shoot someone. How is that not pretending the Pol
187 Post contains links fr8mech : So, now you're in my head? If I ever get into a situation where I need the police, you bet your bippy that if I'm afforded the opportunity to call th
188 cmf : Dead serious is the problem. The gun culture here is deadly but gunners refuse to address it. Rather pretentious to credit it to loosened gun ownersh
189 Darksnowynight : Beat me to that punch there... But yes, what's often overlooked by the gun club here is that the population in general has also grown steadily in tha
190 Smittyone : If you feel that way, vote accordingly. Regardless I'll keep my own counsel on what fights I am or am not entitled to win. I'd say we should hold peo
191 Darksnowynight : I think you're trying to make a Penguin out of spare feathers with that one. If that were anything other than a straw man argument, I likely wouldn't
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Opposite Of Self-gloss: Broke My Knee Today posted Fri Nov 19 2010 22:17:21 by EA CO AS
Guns In The US - How Is It In Real Life? posted Tue Aug 10 2010 05:23:53 by AustrianZRH
A Swarm Of Oddly-clad Runners In St Paul MN posted Fri Jul 30 2010 20:49:23 by Airstud
Video Leaked Of US Killing 2 Reporters In Iraq posted Mon Apr 5 2010 10:49:42 by Yellowstone
DHS Officers Lose 200 Guns In Two Year Period. posted Thu Feb 18 2010 05:53:35 by fxramper
Show Us A Video Of What Hicks Are In Your Country posted Wed Apr 8 2009 03:21:32 by UAL747
Fears Of No-fun Games In Beijing posted Fri Jul 18 2008 22:36:35 by 777ER
0.003g Of Canabis @ DXB = 4 Years In Jail posted Thu Feb 7 2008 23:35:01 by Jawed
Multiculturalism Is Not The Opposite Of Racism posted Mon Nov 19 2007 10:20:38 by AerospaceFan
Be Wary Of Getting Tattoos Done In Thailand! posted Wed Nov 14 2007 02:40:32 by Melpax