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, 314 posts, RR: 0
Posted (1 year 6 months 2 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 3762 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, 706 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (1 year 6 months 2 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 3747 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, 5446 posts, RR: 14
Reply 2, posted (1 year 6 months 2 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 3749 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.
User currently offlineTheCommodore From Australia, joined Dec 2007, 2872 posts, RR: 8
Reply 3, posted (1 year 6 months 2 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 3732 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, 7908 posts, RR: 51
Reply 4, posted (1 year 6 months 2 weeks ago) and read 3720 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, 7607 posts, RR: 31
Reply 5, posted (1 year 6 months 2 weeks ago) and read 3715 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, 11657 posts, RR: 15
Reply 6, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 3704 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, 7908 posts, RR: 51
Reply 7, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 3697 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 onlineSuperfly From Thailand, joined May 2000, 39885 posts, RR: 74
Reply 8, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 3697 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, 1834 posts, RR: 10
Reply 9, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 3692 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, 11657 posts, RR: 15
Reply 10, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 3683 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 onlineSuperfly From Thailand, joined May 2000, 39885 posts, RR: 74
Reply 11, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 3674 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 6 months 1 week 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 3671 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, 5647 posts, RR: 6
Reply 13, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 3656 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, 1261 posts, RR: 3
Reply 14, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 3638 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, 706 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 3598 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 6 months 1 week 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 3580 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, 5446 posts, RR: 14
Reply 17, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 3571 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.
User currently offlinerfields5421 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 7607 posts, RR: 31
Reply 18, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 3550 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, 7908 posts, RR: 51
Reply 19, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 3535 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, 19703 posts, RR: 58
Reply 20, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 3516 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, 314 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 3514 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, 7607 posts, RR: 31
Reply 22, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 3501 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, 5446 posts, RR: 14
Reply 23, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 3493 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.
User currently offlinerfields5421 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 7607 posts, RR: 31
Reply 24, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 3480 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.


User currently offlinekiwirob From New Zealand, joined Jun 2005, 7382 posts, RR: 5
Reply 25, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 3517 times:

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'd have to have the gun in their hands or on the desk to make it of any use in this situation. Same deal with armed guards in the school the guard has to be at the right place at the right time to make any difference.

IMO the only way to really make schools safe is to make them look like prisons, only 1 way in, students pass through metal detectors and body scanners, simple but costly.


User currently offlinefr8mech From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 5446 posts, RR: 14
Reply 26, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 3506 times:

Quoting rfields5421 (Reply 24):
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.


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 always parents around. I'm there a minimum of twice a week because my shift allows me to have lunch with my kids and to help out in the computer lab and teach Junior Achievement sessions. My wife is a school board member. There are parents in the building(s) all the time.

My point is, that if someone confronts and engages the shooter as soon as possible, the incident ends before the police even get there. Of course, that scenario would be the ideal ending but, I certainly understand that it may not end that way.

There is no easy answer to this. There is no panacea.

Quoting kiwirob (Reply 25):
IMO the only way to really make schools safe is to make them look like prisons, only 1 way in, students pass through metal detectors and body scanners, simple but costly.


And what would prevent a shooter from blasting his way in?



When seconds count...the police are minutes away.
User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 19703 posts, RR: 58
Reply 27, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 3522 times:

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 23):
What prevents that from happening now? What is keeping a teacher from bringing a gun to school now? A sign? A law?

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 there and that same unstable personality that hovers on the precipice of rationality and irrationality suddenly has a weapon within easy reach, it raises the probability that such a tragedy will happen.

It's no different than safety regulations in aircraft. It is layer upon layer of safety that allows us to fly fragile aluminum tubes through the air at high-subsonic speeds with such awesome success rates. In almost every accident, layer upon layer of protection has been eaten away at until a crash occurred.

By arming every teacher, you are increasing the probability that a "quick break" could lead to murder.

And when my fears come true, you will be out there leading the parade to arm every student with a firearm, won't you?


User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7908 posts, RR: 51
Reply 28, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 3512 times:

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 27):
But when the firearm is there and that same unstable personality that hovers on the precipice of rationality and irrationality suddenly has a weapon within easy reach, it raises the probability that such a tragedy will happen.

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, the people that would end up registering a gun would indeed use it in a crime. Doesn't make sense but a lot of stuff people do doesn't make sense



Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently offlinefr8mech From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 5446 posts, RR: 14
Reply 29, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 3508 times:

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 27):
By arming every teacher, you are increasing the probability that a "quick break" could lead to murder.


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, don't we? Should we put together a Federal (or State) Classroom Officer program for further vetting?



When seconds count...the police are minutes away.
User currently offlineGeezer From United States of America, joined Aug 2010, 1479 posts, RR: 2
Reply 30, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 3509 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.

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".

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

What I really think is, people in Australia should should be MORE concerned about things happening in Australia, and much LESS concerned about things happening in the U.S.

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.

I don't think anyone will disagree with that, Chief; and the exact same thing holds true every time you park your car anyplace in public.......if you leave anything of value in it, not only does it have a very high likelihood of being stolen, but you are also very likely to have a VERY substantial repair bill to replace the broken windows in your car; and I might mention, being fully aware of this, I NEVER leave things of value, ( especially a weapon ), in an un-attended car.

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

No one (other than you) has said anything about "one teacher"; as far as the rest of your question..........I'm sure anyone attempting to answer it would have better luck explaining their "views" to a tree.

Quoting seb146 (Reply 10):
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?

why is it that you seem to think "public schools are constantly being "de-funded" by "the right" ? and please give us an example of anyone being given "tons of guns".............( other than the Mexican drug cartels, by "you know who" ! And DON'T try blame THAT on GWB, because he had NOTHING to do with it, (unlike Eric Holder)

Quoting seb146 (Reply 10):
Okay, then. What is the point of private citizens owning that many military grade weapons? To overthrow the government?

You have THAT exactly backwards ! The "private citizens" you are referring to, have no plans what-so-ever to "over-throw" the government; unfortunately, I'm afraid the same cannot be said about "the government". (let's try to keep this discussion on the original topic)

Quoting Mudboy (Reply 12):
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.

You're asking many questions; then, you're attempting to "suggest" that the "inevitable" will always happen....a "curious little kid" will cause someone to get shot. and don't worry.....I'm not going to "blast you"; your obvious concern is a valid one; I've thought of it myself. And it's partly why I don't advocate teachers, (or anyone else), keeping loaded weapons in desk drawers in class rooms. There is obviously only ONE safe place to "keep" weapons in a school, and I have no intention of going into the "specifics" of CC on a forum with 85% being against weapons being carried by anyone, outside of "law enforcement".

Quoting Mudboy (Reply 12):
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 taki

Not knowing you, never having met you, I really have no idea about your knowledge regarding the proper training and safe handling of weapons, nor do I believe you have any about mine; what I AM absolutely positive of is though, we are ALL living in a society that has changed considerably (for the worse), over the past few decades. People on both sides of the political spectrum have suggested solutions; so far, I have not seen ANY from "the left" that have any chance what ever of improving the problem; at the same time, all suggestions from "the right" are immediately dismissed, mostly by people who I seriously doubt have ever held a hand gun, much less fired one. My question is, why are we even having this discussion ? I think about everyone on A.net who has followed the Non-Av forum for any time, knows by this time who is "for" and who is "against";

Some seem to believe that..."teachers don't know anything about guns, and should only "teach"; I can easily show anyone willing to listen, that a lot of "teachers" don't know anything about "teaching" either, and their "results" PROVE it!
It could even be accurately stated that........many police officers would be hard pressed to "hit a large barn" with their weapon; and at the same time, I can SHOW you HUNDREDS of "ordinary civilians" who can "out shoot" many LEOs.
It all depends on which civilian and which LEO you're talking about.

The "left" has advocated placing "gun free zone" signs on schools and such; why not put them on banks and liquor stores as well ? Many large banks have had armed guards since I was a child; may I suggest you contact the F.B.I. and request "statistics" on bank robberies over the last 50 or so years ? Every suggestion having even the slightest chance of lessoning gun violence is met with one more idiotic response from the left; "put a sign at the entrance; NO GUNS ALLOWED !" If that's what you really believe, please explain this;

The state of Illinois: most restrictive gun laws in the U.S. Chicago; ditto; no guns allowed by anyone except LE; yet Chicago's murder rate and victims of gun-shot wounds coming to hospitals far exceeds any other city in the U.S.
every time this is pointed out, we always hear more far-fetched "schemes" for getting "all the guns" out of the hands of......the law abiding people who haven't broken any law !

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

I really don't think "removing the 100,000,000 or so guns from all the "private citizens" is going to "happen" any time soon either.

Charley



Stupidity: Doing the same thing over and over and over again and expecting a different result; Albert Einstein
User currently offlineMudboy From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 1167 posts, RR: 5
Reply 31, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 3498 times:

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 17):
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.

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. You have to show accountability in training, proficiency and you must be bonded.

Quoting Geezer (Reply 30):
Not knowing you, never having met you, I really have no idea about your knowledge regarding the proper training and safe handling of weapons, nor do I believe you have any about mine; what I AM absolutely positive of is though, we are ALL living in a society that has changed considerably (for the worse), over the past few decades. People on both sides of the political spectrum have suggested solutions; so far, I have not seen ANY from "the left" that have any chance what ever of improving the problem; at the same time, all suggestions from "the right" are immediately dismissed, mostly by people who I seriously doubt have ever held a hand gun, much less fired one. My question is, why are we even having this discussion ? I think about everyone on A.net who has followed the Non-Av forum for any time, knows by this time who is "for" and who is "against";

I was a Tactical Medic on SWAT prior to becoming a full time Flight Paramedic/RN. I am proficient on M9, M4, M249, M203, Shotgun and AK47 as I had to be, prior to deploying to Iraq and Afghanistan.

[Edited 2013-03-09 12:50:01]

[Edited 2013-03-09 13:00:54]

User currently offlinefr8mech From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 5446 posts, RR: 14
Reply 32, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 3486 times:

Quoting Mudboy (Reply 31):
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. You have to show accountability in training, proficiency and you must be bonded

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 school employee, a hired security officer or a volunteer to serve as a “sentinel” who can carry a firearm in the school. The school district must receive the permission of its local law enforcement agency before carrying out the program. The law requires the sentinels to undergo training similar to what law enforcement officers receive.

My suggestion, the repeal of the various School Gun Free zones doesn't entail those problems. It's just a private citizen going about his business.

I agree, that if the teacher or administrator is tagged with an additional duty as "sentinel" as defined by the statue, then yes, the district will have a duty to provide training and anything else that carrying a gun as part of the job requires.



When seconds count...the police are minutes away.
User currently offlineMudboy From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 1167 posts, RR: 5
Reply 33, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 3478 times:

Quoting Geezer (Reply 30):
Not knowing you, never having met you, I really have no idea about your knowledge regarding the proper training and safe handling of weapons, nor do I believe you have any about mine; what I AM absolutely positive of is though, we are ALL living in a society that has changed considerably (for the worse), over the past few decades. People on both sides of the political spectrum have suggested solutions; so far, I have not seen ANY from "the left" that have any chance what ever of improving the problem; at the same time, all suggestions from "the right" are immediately dismissed, mostly by people who I seriously doubt have ever held a hand gun, much less fired one. My question is, why are we even having this discussion ? I think about everyone on A.net who has followed the Non-Av forum for any time, knows by this time who is "for" and who is "against";

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 to point out that allowing someone to be armed in their line of work, takes a lot more accountability, than just allowing someone to carry, because they have a CC permit. Carrying a deadly weapon is a huge responsibility and before I want anyone to be around our children with a gun, there better be some stringent rules and regulations in place. I think we all agree that in the end, we all want a safe environment, for our children to go to school in.


User currently offlinecmf From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 34, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 3454 times:

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 17):
All these places were gun-free zones by statue or policy. Didn't seem slow these guys down.

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.

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 17):
Actually, I don't suggest that. I suggest that the shooters have an easier time of it in gun-free zones

Do they? Do most shootings happen in gun-free zones or not?

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 17):
You're right, I do suggest that.

Provide evidence to support that statement. Not just an isolated NRA sponsored paper but solid peer-reviewed documents.

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 17):
Accidents happen when firearms are handled (or mishandled). A properly holstered firearm is about as dangerous as a brick.

I am not aware of any person who keep their weapon holstered 24/7. The number of accidents are directly related to exposure.

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 17):
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.

You don't want to pay for an alarm on your gun safe but you want us to have teachers trained to the level of police officers. Alternatively you send lambs to slaughter.

Quoting rfields5421 (Reply 18):
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.

They might have hit him. However, if his mother had not provided access to the weapons they probably would not have had to confront anyone.

Quoting rfields5421 (Reply 18):
Personally, I see armed teachers as a greater risk to students than unarmed teachers.

Hard to argue with that.

Quoting rfields5421 (Reply 22):
That allowed several of the wounded to get to safety.

The main reason for limiting magazines.

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 23):
What prevents that from happening now? What is keeping a teacher from bringing a gun to school now? A sign? A law?

Time, is the important difference. There is a big difference between unholster a weapon you have on you and having to go home, pick up the weapon, drive back to school and then decide to carry on the shooting.

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 27):
But when the firearm is there and that same unstable personality that hovers on the precipice of rationality and irrationality suddenly has a weapon within easy reach, it raises the probability that such a tragedy will happen.
Quoting Geezer (Reply 30):
What I really think is, people in Australia should should be MORE concerned about things happening in Australia, and much LESS concerned about things happening in the U.S.

You're missing that Australia had a very similar situation. Each state having their own laws, a lot of people used to have semi-automatic weapons, etc. The big difference is that they dealt with it, very successfully. There was a short upswing of violent crime but only for about a year. Horrors of horrors,it wasn't done by the left.

Quoting Mudboy (Reply 31):
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. You have to show accountability in training, proficiency and you must be bonded.

  


User currently offlineWestJet747 From Canada, joined Aug 2011, 1834 posts, RR: 10
Reply 35, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 3445 times:

Quoting rfields5421 (Reply 22):
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 Columbine shooters weren't trained whatsoever, were they? (or is that the point you're trying to make?)

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 agree with rfields in his response to this. I'd be more worried about those parents in this situation. What if the police are able to respond right away, and they mistake the parent for the intruder because they see them holding a weapon. It would be horrible if the police accidentally shot someone who was only trying to help.

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 26):
And what would prevent a shooter from blasting his way in?

If there's a single entrance with armed guards, and the shooter can blast there way through that, then I'm not sure what else can stop them. If multiple trained guards can't stop a shooter, what is a teacher going to do?

Quoting Geezer (Reply 30):
What I really think is, people in Australia should should be MORE concerned about things happening in Australia, and much LESS concerned about things happening in the U.S.

Last time I checked, Charley, the 'A' in 'A-net' stood for 'Airliners', not 'American'. This is an international forum, open to people from any country who are allowed to freely express their opinions on any range of topics. If you don't like it, then go start another forum where only Americans are allowed to post. The fact that the mods allow you to make these intolerant statements should be an example to you to not berate others because the flag next to their name isn't the same as yours.

Quoting Mudboy (Reply 33):
I only have my opinion on this because of what I have seen in my career. I am only trying to point out that allowing someone to be armed in their line of work, takes a lot more accountability, than just allowing someone to carry, because they have a CC permit. Carrying a deadly weapon is a huge responsibility and before I want anyone to be around our children with a gun, there better be some stringent rules and regulations in place. I think we all agree that in the end, we all want a safe environment, for our children to go to school in.

Very well said, Mudboy.



Flying refined.
User currently offlineCalebWilliams From United States of America, joined Dec 2008, 314 posts, RR: 0
Reply 36, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 3384 times:

Quoting Geezer (Reply 30):
The state of Illinois: most restrictive gun laws in the U.S. Chicago; ditto; no guns allowed by anyone except LE; yet Chicago's murder rate and victims of gun-shot wounds coming to hospitals far exceeds any other city in the U.S. every time this is pointed out, we always hear more far-fetched "schemes" for getting "all the guns" out of the hands of......the law abiding people who haven't broken any law !

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 restrictions?

Can someone please answer this question?

Thanks,



Caleb Williams MSP AUS STL AMS CPH LGW YYZ
User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7908 posts, RR: 51
Reply 37, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 3360 times:

Quoting CalebWilliams (Reply 36):
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 restrictions?

Can someone please answer this question?

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 wouldn't be much controversy.

For example, put 20 guns in the school (more guns) carried by kids... most likely more deaths
Now put 20 guns in the school (more guns) carried by cops... most likely, less deaths

^It's a simplistic, stupid example but it clearly shows that "more guns" can either increase or decrease deaths, so there is way more to the equation than this.


I'm mostly in agreement with Mudboy. I don't outright think this is a bad idea, but I think you're gonna need more than a carry permit to pull this off safely. I'm leaning towards administrators and a very few teachers, perhaps ex-military or LEO, and they need to be going through very proficient, regular training. And no, don't keep the gun in the desk. I don't think anyone is advocating that. Have it concealed, and don't let the kids know about it



Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently offlineGeezer From United States of America, joined Aug 2010, 1479 posts, RR: 2
Reply 38, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 3345 times:

Quoting cmf (Reply 34):
You're missing that Australia had a very similar situation. Each state having their own laws, a lot of people used to have semi-automatic weapons, etc. The big difference is that they dealt with it, very successfully. There was a short upswing of violent crime but only for about a year. Horrors of horrors,it wasn't done by the left.

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 have always had the greatest respect for the people of Australia; especially since I bought my saw mill; it was "invented" and built in Australia; and anyone clever enough to come up with that thing, is pretty clever in my book; but I STILL don't care how they "run" THEIR country, nor do I think they need to be worrying about how "we" run "ours".

Quoting CalebWilliams (Reply 36):
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 restrictions?

Well, for starters, I read the Chicago Tribune everyday, online, and I keep fairly "abreast " of the gun / crime "situation" in and around Chicago; if all of that doesn't meet "your" criteria, perhaps you may want to "present" YOUR "better idea";
(and sorry, I won't be holding my breath)

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 37):
. And no, don't keep the gun in the desk. I don't think anyone is advocating that. Have it concealed, and don't let the kids know about it

First rational reply since #32 & 33

Quoting WestJet747 (Reply 35):
Last time I checked, Charley, the 'A' in 'A-net' stood for 'Airliners', not 'American'. This is an international forum, open to people from any country who are allowed to freely express their opinions on any range of topics. If you don't like it, then go start another forum where only Americans are allowed to post. The fact that the mods allow you to make these intolerant statements should be an example to you to not berate others because the flag next to their name isn't the same as yours.

That sounds like almost an exact copy of the last person who attempted to "justify" people from being so "concerned" about the internal affairs of other countries. Tell me WJ 747, can you show me ANY examples of people flying American flags, trying to nit-pick all of the silly laws in any other country ? Would you care to use that "rationale" with the leaders of, say, "Mainland China" and see how far it gets you ? Or perhaps you could send an email to Mr. V. Putin, telling him how you "strenuously disagree" with his "policies" ? (And please be sure to let us know how that "works out" ?)


This may be a bit "off topic", but it addresses an issue from this thread, so I really don't think it IS "off topic".........

I could search back through previous threads and find hundreds of examples of people who regularly make reply after reply on almost any topic concerning politics, who ALWAYS challenge anyone whose "views" don't agree with their views, and who ALWAYS insist on "sources", and who ALWAYS go off on a tirade after any mention of Fox News, but at the same time, NEVER seem to have ANY credible "sources" of their own; I rather think your attempting to belittle me, because I'm a firm believer in the old adage, "when in Rome, do as the Romans do"; ( and forget about trying to tell the Romans HOW to "do it".)

Charley



Stupidity: Doing the same thing over and over and over again and expecting a different result; Albert Einstein
User currently offlineCalebWilliams From United States of America, joined Dec 2008, 314 posts, RR: 0
Reply 39, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 3325 times:

Quoting Geezer (Reply 38):
Well, for starters, I read the Chicago Tribune everyday, online, and I keep fairly "abreast " of the gun / crime "situation" in and around Chicago; if all of that doesn't meet "your" criteria, perhaps you may want to "present" YOUR "better idea";
(and sorry, I won't be holding my breath)

That's great that you're well informed, but please prove your assertion that gun restrictions lead to higher gun crime.



Caleb Williams MSP AUS STL AMS CPH LGW YYZ
User currently offlinecmf From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 40, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 3321 times:

Quoting Geezer (Reply 38):
I have ZERO interest in what happens in Australia;

Some people just need to reinvent the wheel over and over. Other learn from what others have done.

Quoting Geezer (Reply 38):
when in Rome, do as the Romans do

In this Rome the rule is that you must respect the opinions of others. It is the rule 1a. When in Rome...


User currently offlineCalebWilliams From United States of America, joined Dec 2008, 314 posts, RR: 0
Reply 41, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 3314 times:

Quoting cmf (Reply 40):
Some people just need to reinvent the wheel over and over. Other learn from what others have done.

We Americans are a stubborn bunch.



Caleb Williams MSP AUS STL AMS CPH LGW YYZ
User currently offlineAesma From France, joined Nov 2009, 6656 posts, RR: 11
Reply 42, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 3314 times:

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 possible, let the criminals go and catch them later is the usual practice), so I'm not sure what kind of training is suggested here ?

Several posters have mentioned the problem of possible accidents, and guns being stolen, but I'd be more worried about a teen attacking a professor directly, the gun showing up and ending up in the wrong ends during the fight. When you already have teachers being beaten or stabbed, it's not much of a stretch.

As for the correlation between gun laws and violence in the US, it's pretty much meaningless since you can drive from state to state freely, and most laws are local. Look at countries like the UK where strict gun laws were imposed from one day to the next all over the country and results are clear, it worked.



New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
User currently offlineseb146 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 11657 posts, RR: 15
Reply 43, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 3289 times:

Quoting Geezer (Reply 30):
why is it that you seem to think "public schools are constantly being "de-funded" by "the right" ?

The "voucher systems" for "education" always trying to be "implimented" by the "right" is a "good start".

Quoting Geezer (Reply 30):
and please give us an example of anyone being given "tons of guns"

People who attend "gun shows" and "straw purchases" by "questionable" people. As far as "schools" go, one gun on a "campus" by anyone is "too many" guns.



Life in the wall is a drag.
User currently offlineTheCommodore From Australia, joined Dec 2007, 2872 posts, RR: 8
Reply 44, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 3291 times:

Quoting Geezer (Reply 30):
What I really think is, people in Australia should should be MORE concerned about things happening in Australia, and much LESS concerned about things happening in the U.S.

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 engages in All over the world, starting never ending conflicts that drag in the rest of us.

Perhaps the US should be a little more concerned about its own back yard and get your own house in order before you start telling others, in an international forum, about what they should be "concerned with"

Man, you should practice what you preach !

Quoting Geezer (Reply 38):
I have ZERO interest in what happens in Australia; I have always had the greatest respect for the people of Australia;

So Geezer, you say you have "zero interest" in what happens in Australia, yet in the same breath, you say you have the "greatest of respect for Australians.......

If that is true, then how could you have respect for a nation of people, when you have "zero" interest in what happens there ?

Strange ideology indeed. But I shouldn't be surprised of the drivel coming from someone so "insular"

Quoting Geezer (Reply 38):
That sounds like almost an exact copy of the last person who attempted to "justify" people from being so "concerned" about the internal affairs of other countries.

Well, there you go again. You simply cant take any criticism at all can you ?

But its perfectly OK for the US to influence and be "concerned" about the internal politics of MANY countries.

The hypocrisy is staggering.

Quoting Geezer (Reply 38):
can you show me ANY examples of people flying American flags, trying to nit-pick all of the silly laws in any other country ?

Rubbish !

Posts listed and started by your fellow US countrymen, ALL about "other" countries ! (non-aviation)

1) Swiss Approve Law On Bosse's Pay.
2) Iceland Wants To Ban Online Porn.
3) Woman In Argentina Marries Killer Of Twin Sister

I can go on and on .........

[Edited 2013-03-10 15:51:37]


Flown 905,468 kms or 2.356 times to the moon, 1296 hrs, Longest flight 10,524 kms
User currently offlineGSPflyer From United States of America, joined Jul 2010, 369 posts, RR: 0
Reply 45, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 3267 times:

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 getting their hands on it. I feel like we need to repeal the law that makes schools "gun free" zones. My sister lives in Utah, and according to what she learned in her CWP class, teachers there are allowed to have a gun in the classroom, provided that it is legally concealed and they have a permit. They have never had a school shooting, nor a case of a teacher going crazy and shooting a student.

Quoting WestJet747 (Reply 35):
What if the police are able to respond right away, and they mistake the parent for the intruder because they see them holding a weapon. It would be horrible if the police accidentally shot someone who was only trying to help.

In South Carolina Concealed Weapons training, we are taught that in the event that you shoot someone in self defense, immediately dial 9-1-1, stay on the phone with dispatch, tell them where your are, and give them a description of yourself (clothing, etc.), they will relay this information to police. When the police do arrive, either holster your weapon, or place it on the ground and step away from it.

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

Doesn't matter what kind of gun he/she has, one bullet in the right place will stop them. It's no different than stopping someone who is trying to use a 9MM to steal your car.


User currently offlinefr8mech From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 5446 posts, RR: 14
Reply 46, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 3222 times:

Quoting cmf (Reply 34):
By listing those events you suggest they would not have happened if it wasn't for the gun free zone.


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 responsible by the state been allowed to carry a gun.

Quoting cmf (Reply 34):
Do they? Do most shootings happen in gun-free zones or not?


No, they don't. But, the ones that garner national attention and lead to "call for action" by the gun-grabbers tend to happen in gun free zones.

Quoting cmf (Reply 34):
I am not aware of any person who keep their weapon holstered 24/7.


No one said 24/7. I would presume that if you carry a gun, it is carried in a holster that protects the trigger. It doesn't have to be on your hip to preform that simple task. In fact, I would support legislation to that effect. Now, depending on your situation, you may also want a holster that has a retention quality to it. By the way, each of my handguns is always stored in such a way that the trigger is protected by a holster or a case.

Quoting cmf (Reply 34):
You don't want to pay for an alarm on your gun safe but you want us to have teachers trained to the level of police officers.


Again, where have I said I want to train teachers to be police officers. All I want is for a teacher, an administrator or a visiting adult to be allowed to carry a firearm (that they are licensed to carry) to be allowed to do so without legal jeopardy.

Quoting CalebWilliams (Reply 36):
Can someone please answer this question?
Quoting CalebWilliams (Reply 39):
That's great that you're well informed, but please prove your assertion that gun restrictions lead to higher gun crime.


Maybe not gun crime, but this Harvard (that bastion of conservative thought  ) study suggests that more gun restriction equal more crime.
http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/...pp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf



When seconds count...the police are minutes away.
User currently onlineKaiGywer From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 12251 posts, RR: 35
Reply 47, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 3191 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
FORUM MODERATOR

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 46):
No one said 24/7. I would presume that if you carry a gun, it is carried in a holster that protects the trigger. It doesn't have to be on your hip to preform that simple task. In fact, I would support legislation to that effect. Now, depending on your situation, you may also want a holster that has a retention quality to it.

I agree with retention. While my duty holster is a triple retention holster, my off duty holster still has a single retention.



911, where is your emergency?
User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7908 posts, RR: 51
Reply 48, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 3176 times:

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 46):
Quoting cmf (Reply 34):
By listing those events you suggest they would not have happened if it wasn't for the gun free zone.


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 responsible by the state been allowed to carry a gun.

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?

I think it can be done, but I want to lean on the side of safety. We don't see school resource officers shooting kids, so we know that a gun in a school in the right hands can be helpful, so if guns are introduced, they need to be introduced under very similar circumstances. I'm leaning towards administrators and very select teachers (ex-military or LEO perhaps) and the training must be a lot more than usual CCW classes



Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently offlinefr8mech From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 5446 posts, RR: 14
Reply 49, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 3156 times:

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 48):
I'm leaning towards administrators and very select teachers (ex-military or LEO perhaps) and the training must be a lot more than usual CCW classes

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 training requirements are you changing the job description of the teacher? Does the school now have to provide bonding? Extra-pay? Training? Does the school have to provide secure storage?

Again, not opposed to it, but it adds extra levels of complexity and more closely follows the NRA's thinking on the matter.

Personally, I prefer the repeal of the various gun-free zone laws and allowing the individual schools or school districts to make the determination as to whether to allow a licensed person on the property while armed.

As an aside, do you realize that even police officers that are out of their home state are not protected from prosecution under the federal Gun Free School Zone Act? Ridiculous, isn't it?



When seconds count...the police are minutes away.
User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7908 posts, RR: 51
Reply 50, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 3150 times:

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 49):
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 training requirements are you changing the job description of the teacher? Does the school now have to provide bonding? Extra-pay? Training? Does the school have to provide secure storage?

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."

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 49):
Personally, I prefer the repeal of the various gun-free zone laws and allowing the individual schools or school districts to make the determination as to whether to allow a licensed person on the property while armed.

Maybe have the schools decide, or the state anyway, but I fail to see how letting parents carry would even remotely do any good. There is a risk analysis, and having teachers carry is questionable on whether it would do good. But what are the odds a armed parent would be in the school at that time? It's wayyyyyyy more unlikely than with a teacher. And on the flip side, now you allow people with guns to walk in school freely. Yeah, they can "do that now" but if you spot the gun, it's legal, they can just proceed unhindered. That would make it much easier for them to get in close.

I'd support measures like making it legal to drive through a school zone with a gun (I think that's illegal in some states) or dropping a kid off. Even having it locked in your car while you do stuff is ok by me. We had a policy like that at my college in GA



Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently offlinefr8mech From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 5446 posts, RR: 14
Reply 51, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 3145 times:

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 50):
but I fail to see how letting parents carry would even remotely do any good.

That one parent may well be the difference bewtween someone confronting the a shooter immediately or waiting for a police response. Again, the sooner these folks are successfully engaged, the sooner the situation comes to an end.

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 50):
But what are the odds a armed parent would be in the school at that time?


I think that would depend on the state and the school. I know there are always parents, myself included, in my kids' school all the time. How many are CCDW holders? I know of at least 2 others (that are at the school fairly consistently) because I shoot with them. A quick glance at my calendar shows me on the school property, during classes, at least 3 times this week.
Sadly, I'm sure in some schools seeing a parent is a rarity.

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 50):
I'd support measures like making it legal to drive through a school zone with a gun (I think that's illegal in some states) or dropping a kid off. Even having it locked in your car while you do stuff is ok by me


The current law allows that if a state has issued a person a permit, then the person can enter a school zone. The various states then set restrictions as they see fit. In this state, a permit holder can be on the property so long as the firearm is properly stored in the vehicle and not brandished.



When seconds count...the police are minutes away.
User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7908 posts, RR: 51
Reply 52, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 3120 times:

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 51):
That one parent may well be the difference bewtween someone confronting the a shooter immediately or waiting for a police response. Again, the sooner these folks are successfully engaged, the sooner the situation comes to an end.

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 of "pro-gun" ideas I don't think work and I don't agree with.



Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently offlinefr8mech From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 5446 posts, RR: 14
Reply 53, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 3111 times:

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 52):
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 of "pro-gun" ideas I don't think work and I don't agree with.


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 with the various state legislatures. I say we need to lift restrictions and bring the decision making power to school or district level.

As for the federal law, it puts so many people in legal jeopardy, it's not funny. In fact, most of these people in jeopardy probably don't even realize they're there.



When seconds count...the police are minutes away.
User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7908 posts, RR: 51
Reply 54, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 3108 times:

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 53):
Right now, in most states, the power resides with the various state legislatures. I say we need to lift restrictions and bring the decision making power to school or district level.

I agree, I'm for more local and state solutions



Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently offlineseb146 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 11657 posts, RR: 15
Reply 55, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 3088 times:

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 50):
I'd support measures like making it legal to drive through a school zone with a gun (I think that's illegal in some states) or dropping a kid off. Even having it locked in your car while you do stuff is ok by me.

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, all of a sudden, money in public school budgets to arm and train teachers, why is there no money for more teachers?



Life in the wall is a drag.
User currently offlineCalebWilliams From United States of America, joined Dec 2008, 314 posts, RR: 0
Reply 56, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 3072 times:

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 51):
I think that would depend on the state and the school. I know there are always parents, myself included, in my kids' school all the time. How many are CCDW holders? I know of at least 2 others (that are at the school fairly consistently) because I shoot with them. A quick glance at my calendar shows me on the school property, during classes, at least 3 times this week.

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 involvement with with their education.

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 51):
Sadly, I'm sure in some schools seeing a parent is a rarity.

It certainly was with my education, though looking back on it there were a few parents around for the snack shop at lunch.



Caleb Williams MSP AUS STL AMS CPH LGW YYZ
User currently offlinefr8mech From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 5446 posts, RR: 14
Reply 57, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 3068 times:

Quoting seb146 (Reply 55):
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

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 honored, and I drive by a school, I am in violation of the federal law. How ridiculous is that?

Quoting CalebWilliams (Reply 56):
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 involvement with with their education

10 and 6...and thank you. The school encourages parental involvement, whether its in the classroom through structured programs like JA or in cafeteria as a helper or any other help the school may need. Pyayground, computer room, art room, etc.

Quoting seb146 (Reply 55):
My main point is: if there is, all of a sudden, money in public school budgets to arm and train teachers, why is there no money for more teachers?

That's why I really don't support the NRA's plan. I think you achieve much the same result by removing the barriers to allowing licensed, willing adults to carry in and around a school.



When seconds count...the police are minutes away.
User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7908 posts, RR: 51
Reply 58, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 3064 times:

Quoting seb146 (Reply 55):
My main point is: if there is, all of a sudden, money in public school budgets to arm and train teachers, why is there no money for more teachers?

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 training for administrators or something, let the school decide. Honestly, in the grand scheme of things (and assuming you let the administrator use his/her own gun) you're not talking about a huge some of money.

Last thing I want to see, like I said, is something federal. You never know what the clowns in DC may come up with... a bill shoved through that puts 2 armed guards at every school or something. Now that would be a large sum of money, one-sized approach too.

[Edited 2013-03-11 17:56:48]


Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently offlinefuturepilot16 From United States of America, joined Mar 2007, 2035 posts, RR: 0
Reply 59, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 3062 times:

Quoting seb146 (Reply 55):
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.

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 gas station?  



"The brave don't live forever, but the cautious don't live at all."
User currently offlineMudboy From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 1167 posts, RR: 5
Reply 60, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 3054 times:

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 49):
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 training requirements are you changing the job description of the teacher? Does the school now have to provide bonding? Extra-pay? Training? Does the school have to provide secure storage?

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 is well and you should be able to carry at work, which is not true. If a law as such were passed, being a Teacher would now become an armed position and as with any armed position, you have to meet standards of training, qualifications, proficiency and you have to be bonded, as with any armed position, LEO, Armed Security etc. You also need to be able to defend yourself, from your weapon being taken from you.


User currently offlineseb146 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 11657 posts, RR: 15
Reply 61, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 3038 times:

Quoting futurepilot16 (Reply 59):
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 gas station?

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, but if you are just going the store or gas station, why?

We looked at buying a condo in Emeryville. On San Pablo Ave. Anyone familiar with the East Bay knows about San Pablo Ave. We were there in the day and feel we needed a gun. But, living in the country or suburbs like Santa Rosa, not so much.

If you are the registered owner of the gun and forget it is under the seat (it happens) and you are just going to the store, not a problem. But, at 3AM? How can that not look suspicious?

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 58):
Schools can do what they wish.

Private schools, yes. Public schools should be held to a different standard since they are paid for with our tax dollars. And I don't want my tax dollars going to gun toting teachers with a Dirty Harry attitude. Very extreme, I know. I would rather my tax dollars go to hiring more teachers. Private schools (read: any grade/high school that charges tuition and has application process) can do what they will. They have nothing to do with this.

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 58):
If a school board wants to spend money on a bit of training for administrators or something, let the school decide.

People keep screaming to "think of the children's education" but there is no money in the budget for it the cities and states say. But, now, some schools are saying they can probably come up with some money for hiring guards and weapons and training teachers with firearms. But, no money for more teachers.



Life in the wall is a drag.
User currently offlinefuturepilot16 From United States of America, joined Mar 2007, 2035 posts, RR: 0
Reply 62, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 3027 times:

Quoting seb146 (Reply 61):
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, but if you are just going the store or gas station, why?

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 to the gas station, i'll go in and buy what I need or fill up with gas and i'll leave unharmed, but what happens that one time when I don't think about safety? That's when something could happen. I'll get blindsided by a drunk driver while i'm not wearing my seatbelt, somebody could run a red light, somebody could mistake me for someone else and shoot at me, in these instances, I don't wanna be left wondering, why did I let my guard down?

You gotta understand that as a person who realizes what kind of world we live in today, i'm as attached to my firearm as much as anything else I carry on my person , or any other precaution I take to guarantee my safety. It's just as important to me as my wallet, my seatbelt and my cell phone . Some, including yourself might call me paranoid, but i'd rather live like this instead of getting caught slipping, simple as that.



"The brave don't live forever, but the cautious don't live at all."
User currently offlineseb146 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 11657 posts, RR: 15
Reply 63, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 3015 times:

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 57):
If I happen to be driving in IN, where my KY permit is honored, and I drive by a school, I am in violation of the federal law. How ridiculous is that?

Federal law is different than state law. Why is private health insurance honored in some states but not others? States rights?

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 57):
I think you achieve much the same result by removing the barriers to allowing licensed, willing adults to carry in and around a school.

Some of those "willing adults" are not always the best to be carrying firearms.

Quoting futurepilot16 (Reply 62):
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?

For those idiots who decide "I only had a coupla beers. I'll be fine!" or "the breaks on the bus are fine, right?" Or, here in California: The light has only turned red. We got time to make it!

Quoting futurepilot16 (Reply 62):
You gotta understand that as a person who realizes what kind of world we live in today, i'm as attached to my firearm as much as anything else I carry on my

I know what kind of world we live in. I own no firearms. Even if I did, I still don't trust those lurking in the shadows. How many people can be taken out from the shadows before anyone realizes what is going on? Remember the DC snipers? People were looking for vans when the snipers were driving an Impala. I don't trust people, but even those carrying legally can be taken out.



Life in the wall is a drag.
User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7908 posts, RR: 51
Reply 64, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 3009 times:

Quoting seb146 (Reply 61):
Private schools, yes. Public schools should be held to a different standard since they are paid for with our tax dollars. And I don't want my tax dollars going to gun toting teachers with a Dirty Harry attitude. Very extreme, I know. I would rather my tax dollars go to hiring more teachers. Private schools (read: any grade/high school that charges tuition and has application process) can do what they will. They have nothing to do with this.

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. (Yeah, I know there is a little bit of federal money involved, most money and control comes from the state and county)

Quoting seb146 (Reply 61):
People keep screaming to "think of the children's education" but there is no money in the budget for it the cities and states say.

For every city? For every county? For every state? I agree, by and large, education has somewhat been put on the back burner, but if Fayette County, GA has the money, let them do it if they want. If Orange County, CA wants nothing to do with it, good for them.

Just my 2c



Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently offlinefr8mech From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 5446 posts, RR: 14
Reply 65, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 2981 times:

Quoting Mudboy (Reply 60):
If a law as such were passed, being a Teacher would now become an armed position

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 qualifiers, e.g. new title, additional training, job description change, does not turn being a teacher into an armed position. It just means the teacher may be armed. If the school or district does decide to create a position of "armed teacher" or whatever else, then the district needs to jump through the applicable legal hoops.

Quoting seb146 (Reply 61):
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, but if you are just going the store or gas station, why?

18 or so months ago I was accosted at a gas station. I wasn't armed at the time. Luckily, an off-duty officer was gassing up at the next island and dealt with the person.

But, of course your question has a more general significance that cuts to he heart of the arguments. People carry because they have a right to carry and a right to defend themselves. It's that simple.

Now, you're going to demand some kind of proof that carrying is actually in my best interest and regardless of how many news stories or articles or studies or statistics are trotted out, you will say that it is insufficient and that carrying a gun for any reason other than going hunting or to a range is downright irrational.
Quoting seb146 (Reply 61):
People keep screaming to "think of the children's education"

Actually, now people are screaming "think of the children's safety". Priorities change. Sometimes for the better; other times, the not-so-better.
Quoting seb146 (Reply 63):
Federal law is different than state law. Why is private health insurance honored in some states but not others? States rights?

But, the law in question is not the state law, it is the federal law which has taken away the states' right to honor another state's carry permit inside a school zone. By the way, that infringement also extends to off-duty police officers that may be in the same situation. As I said, ridiculous.

The federal Gun-Free School Zone legislation puts law-abiding citizens in legal jeopardy, and like I said, most of those folks don't even know it. By the way...the general definition of a school zone is any area within 1,000 feet of the school property.



When seconds count...the police are minutes away.
User currently offlinecmf From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 66, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 2975 times:

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 65):
The federal Gun-Free School Zone legislation puts law-abiding citizens in legal jeopardy

What legal jeopardy? What is so difficult about avoiding schools when you carry?


User currently offlinefr8mech From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 5446 posts, RR: 14
Reply 67, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 2971 times:

Quoting cmf (Reply 66):
What legal jeopardy? What is so difficult about avoiding schools when you carry?

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 Maps and draw a 1,000 circle extending from the boundary. Do you now see where someone can be in a school zone and not know it? Hell, just off the top of my head, I know of one school in this area where the school zone straddles an interstate.

How's that for fun? Get pulled over for speeding and get hit with a federal gun charge.

That's why the law is ridiculous and puts otherwise law-abiding citizens in jeopardy.

[Edited 2013-03-12 08:46:48]


When seconds count...the police are minutes away.
User currently offlineseb146 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 11657 posts, RR: 15
Reply 68, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 2966 times:

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 64):
For every city? For every county? For every state?
Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 64):
When I say "let schools decide" I am talking more about state and local governments.

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 guards but hiring teachers has not been a priority? Another Columbine or Sandy Hook could happen. It could have happened here. We can't budget and plan for things that we don't know. I think we need education more and I would love to see more teachers rather than more guns.

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 65):
People carry because they have a right to carry and a right to defend themselves. It's that simple.

So, I should just have a rifle in the back of my car "because I can"? Not much logic to that.

I know people use guns for things like hunting or because they live on San Pablo Ave. But, people like me who live in the suburbs don't really have that need or desire to pack. Even though I can does not mean I want to.

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 65):
it is the federal law which has taken away the states' right to honor another state's carry permit inside a school zone.

Which, like some other laws, is enforced on a case-by-case basis. Many laws are like that. One big one is marijuana laws. Some states enforce them, some pick and choose when to enforce them.



Life in the wall is a drag.
User currently offlineCalebWilliams From United States of America, joined Dec 2008, 314 posts, RR: 0
Reply 69, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 2963 times:

Quoting seb146 (Reply 68):
So, I should just have a rifle in the back of my car "because I can"? Not much logic to that.

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.



Caleb Williams MSP AUS STL AMS CPH LGW YYZ
User currently onlineKaiGywer From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 12251 posts, RR: 35
Reply 70, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 2960 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
FORUM MODERATOR

Quoting seb146 (Reply 68):
Even though I can does not mean I want to.

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 an abortion if they want to.

Why limit people's choices?



911, where is your emergency?
User currently offlineMudboy From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 1167 posts, RR: 5
Reply 71, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 2955 times:

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 65):
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 qualifiers, e.g. new title, additional training, job description change, does not turn being a teacher into an armed position. It just means the teacher may be armed. If the school or district does decide to create a position of "armed teacher" or whatever else, then the district needs to jump through the applicable legal hoops.

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 deadly weapon? Why would being a teacher be any different, in fact being that it is in an environment that is surrounded by children, most would think, the minimal standard would be more stringent.

There is a huge difference between carrying a gun as your 2nd Amendment right and carrying one in the line of duty. If you are prior Military and you become a LEO, you still have to go through the police academy and qualify on the standard issue weapon and maintain proficiency as well as your own weapon, if the Agency you work for, allows you to carry your personal weapon instead of the standard issue. The same goes if you are a LEO and join the Military, you still have to go through their training and qualify on their weapons.

Again I will try to stress that the 2nd Amendment or the fact that you have a CCW, does not give you a free pass to carry in the line of duty, without the standards I mentioned earlier.


User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7908 posts, RR: 51
Reply 72, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 2944 times:

Quoting seb146 (Reply 68):
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 guards but hiring teachers has not been a priority? Another Columbine or Sandy Hook could happen. It could have happened here. We can't budget and plan for things that we don't know. I think we need education more and I would love to see more teachers rather than more guns.

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. Federally, we're rolling dice... what if the Republicans pass a law that puts armed teachers everywhere, including your state and you have to foot the bill? What if the Democrats block the law and make it a federal issue, forcing GA to not let them put armed teachers in?

Honestly, it boils down to states rights vs federal rights. I'm no confederate, and I'm sure Ken777 will jump on me for this, but I think the feds need to set very broad standards (preventing completely unacceptable things from happening like segregated schools) but allowing the states to cater to their needs. Not everyone will be happy, but more people will be happy.

And to tell you the truth, there are dozens of things I'd choose to allocate money to than armed guards. I think education is falling in this country. It sounds really insensitive, but I'd rather the entirety of students have a better education than spend a ton of money on something that *may* lessen the already EXTREMELY rare school massacres. I don't buy the notion that you can't put a value on a life, because we do it all the time, but that's for another thread I guess



Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently offlinecmf From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 73, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 2946 times:

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 67):
Do you now see where someone can be in a school zone and not know it?

The law is clear that it doesn't apply in that situation.

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 67):
That's why the law is ridiculous and puts otherwise law-abiding citizens in jeopardy.

I personally would have drawn the line as school property but the objections you make are not valid as the law is very clear that you must be aware that you were inside the zone.

Quoting KaiGywer (Reply 70):
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 an abortion if they want to.

Why limit people's choices?

No right comes without responsibility. If it wasn't for that people buying guns legally isthe almost exclusive source of weapons used in criminal activities much of this wouldn't be needed. If legal owners knew how to handle weapons it wouldn't be that just about every 20th person killed is by accident and requirements on handling and storage wouldn't be needed. Because your right to carry a weapon is not supersede all other rights.


User currently offlinefr8mech From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 5446 posts, RR: 14
Reply 74, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 2936 times:

Quoting seb146 (Reply 68):
So, I should just have a rifle in the back of my car "because I can"? Not much logic to that

Sometimes it's as easy as that.

Quoting seb146 (Reply 68):
But, people like me who live in the suburbs don't really have that need or desire to pack. Even though I can does not mean I want to.

And, that is your choice. You are free to not exercise your rights as much as I'm free to exercise my rights.

Quoting seb146 (Reply 68):
Which, like some other laws, is enforced on a case-by-case basis.

That's the definition of a capricious law, isn't it?

Quoting Mudboy (Reply 71):
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 deadly weapon?

Once again, I'm not disputing whether or not a teacher who is armed at the request of the school should have additional requirements imposed on the teacher and the school. I'm just saying that if the restriction on armed folks is lifted and a teacher chooses to carry a gun, such a requirement should not be required.

Let's say a person works in a bookstore. The owner of the bookstore doesn't care if his employee is armed. Is that store or employee under some additional legal requirement?
Now, if the bookstore owner asks the employee to take on an additional role as "armed store security", then I believe that additional requirements must be met before the employee can take on that role.

Quoting cmf (Reply 73):
The law is clear that it doesn't apply in that situation.

No, it is not clear. The law states:
"It shall be unlawful for any individual knowingly to possess a firearm...at a place that the individual knows, or has reasonable cause to believe, is a school zone."

I've lived here for 22 years, except for a 3 year stint in TX; should I reasonably know that Dunn Elementary straddles I-264? What about Male High School and I-65? What about Westport Middle School and Westport Road (a major E/W road)?

It leaves too much up to the whim of the police officer and the prosecutor. And, probably more importantly, it does not accomplish what it is meant to accomplish: "... to ensure the integrity and safety of the Nation’s schools by enactment of this subsection. "
In other words, it's feel good legislation that satisfied the "WE HAVE TO DO SOMETHING" gene that all legislators seem to acquire after election.



When seconds count...the police are minutes away.
User currently offlinecmf From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 75, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 2929 times:

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 74):
No, it is not clear. The law states:

That is perfectly clear.

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 74):
It leaves too much up to the whim of the police officer and the prosecutor.

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 because this. To me it indicates it works. Whoever, as I said before. I would prefer the zone to be the school property.

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 74):
n other words, it's feel good legislation that satisfied the "WE HAVE TO DO SOMETHING" gene that all legislators seem to acquire after election.

That is your point of view and I suggest it is cumming up short.


User currently offlineseb146 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 11657 posts, RR: 15
Reply 76, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 2901 times:

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 74):
Quoting seb146 (Reply 68):So, I should just have a rifle in the back of my car "because I can"? Not much logic to that
Sometimes it's as easy as that.
Quoting fr8mech (Reply 74):
You are free to not exercise your rights as much as I'm free to exercise my rights.

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 around, so I can have a gun and I do. No big whoop. There it is just because.

Look, I understand people want to shoot guns for target practice, for food or just for the love of feeling that big gun releasing in their hands. But, just to simply be driving and have a gun? What is the thrill there?

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 72):
what if the Republicans pass a law that puts armed teachers everywhere, including your state and you have to foot the bill?

Heck no! Why should I have to foot the bill for text books approved by the Texas school board?

I am attending a public college in California. I grew up in Oregon and attended public school there, too. Sticking to California, one of my teachers is more liberal than I. Hard to believe, I know. I actually enjoy that class because some of the students are more conservative. They have interesting and well thought out points to make. Even if we don't agree, it is always a fun class and very informative. That is what I like. But, why should the federal government tell the states what to do? Read on:

Quoting KaiGywer (Reply 70):
Or for gay people to get married if they want to...or to have an abortion if they want to.

First of all: what does a state issued contract or medical procedure have to do with anything?
Second: What does Georgia law have to do with California law? What does two consenting adults signing a contract issued by California have to do with Georgia? Why does a female medical procedure in California have to do with the center forward for the Atlanta Hawks? I may not agree with what Georgia does, but I live in California. Shoot each other up in Georgia. I will be heart broken by all the death, but don't tell me, from the other side of the country, what I *HAVE* to do in my state. And, yes, vice versa.



Life in the wall is a drag.
User currently offlinefr8mech From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 5446 posts, RR: 14
Reply 77, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 2872 times:

Quoting seb146 (Reply 76):
still don't get it.

You're right, you don't get it. I'm sure there are things you do that make me shake my head.

Quoting seb146 (Reply 76):
What is the thrill there?

There is no "thrill". Why must there be a "thrill"? Do you require a "thrill" for everything you do?

I carry a gun for the same reason I have fire extinguishers in my home and car. For the same reason I carry home owners', life and auto insurance. To provide additional options if very bad things happen. There is no "thrill" involved.

Quoting seb146 (Reply 76):
But, just to simply be driving and have a gun?

The fact that it is in my car is incidental to the fact that it is on my person.

Quoting seb146 (Reply 76):
But, why should the federal government tell the states what to do?

Glad we agree here. So you're in support of repealing Obamacare? Disbanding the Department of Education?

The USSC did something curious a while back, they said that The Second Amendment applies to the Several States. Much like the the other amendments.



When seconds count...the police are minutes away.
User currently offlineSmittyone From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 78, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 2862 times:

Quoting seb146 (Reply 76):
Look, I understand people want to shoot guns for target practice, for food or just for the love of feeling that big gun releasing in their hands. But, just to simply be driving and have a gun? What is the thrill there?

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 pulled over on the side of the road with a mechanical problem in those areas...where the police may be practically unable to offer assistance should some rapist etc. try to take advantage of the situation. I don't think she actually would want to carry a handgun for self-protection, but per the laws of the State of New Jersey it's not even much of an option:

Per Wikipedia:

New Jersey is a "may-issue" state for concealed carry. Permit applicants must "specify in detail the urgent necessity for self-protection, as evidenced by specific threats or previous attacks which demonstrate a special danger to the applicant's life that cannot be avoided by means other than by issuance of a permit to carry a handgun."


New Jersey's law does not square with my understanding of the Second Amendment.

Never mind that once she got to work (the school), what would she do with it?

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 77):
I carry a gun for the same reason I have fire extinguishers in my home and car. For the same reason I carry home owners', life and auto insurance. To provide additional options if very bad things happen. There is no "thrill" involved.

You're wasting your breath. The concept that an individual citizen has a Constitutional right to 'make his or her own arrangements' with respect to something as elemental as their own physical security is quickly fading away in the United States. The collective, represented by the government, is to a growing degree determining "what you are entitled to" in that area among others.

And even though I don't personally see the need to carry a weapon at this point in time, I resent this.


User currently offlineseb146 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 11657 posts, RR: 15
Reply 79, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 2851 times:

Quoting Smittyone (Reply 78):
My wife is a teacher - drives an hour to work through some wooded areas in the dark and then comes home in the dark.

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 acceptable.

Quoting Smittyone (Reply 78):
New Jersey's law does not square with my understanding of the Second Amendment.

"A well regulated militia being neccessary..." That part?

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 77):
So you're in support of repealing Obamacare? Disbanding the Department of Education?

No and No. The problem with those is not so much that they are federal programs, but the right is fighting like hell to disband the state versions of those programs as well. This country needs education. This country needs health care. I don't know how many times it needs to be said: If people want to pay out of pocket for private education and private insurance, they can. But, for those of us in the real world who can not afford private education and private insurance, we should be able to pay into a system to recieve both.

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 77):
For the same reason I carry home owners', life and auto insurance. To provide additional options if very bad things happen.

So, it is Zero Dark Thirty just around the corner? Gun battles on every street?

I don't live in some fantasy world where everyone is sweet as pie to everyone. I know shootings and muggings happen all the time. I choose to live my life such that I never have to deal with any of that. I don't drive in the ghetto just to drive in the ghetto, I don't walk through the dark woods late at night... The people in Aurora and Sandy Hook and Columbine and Tucson were simply going about their lives. They had no idea what was going to happen. They didn't prepare for the absolute worst because they were going someplace they thought was safe. I refuse to live in fear. I keep my head in the game, but I refuse to live in fear.



Life in the wall is a drag.
User currently offlineSmittyone From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 80, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 2848 times:

Quoting seb146 (Reply 79):
"A well regulated militia being neccessary..." That part?

For better or worse, the Supreme Court has supported a broader interpretation (I'm sure people have mentioned the applicable decision). Until they rule otherwise that is the law of the land.

And lest we suspect a miscarriage of justice by the Supreme Court, Thomas Jefferson's statements from that period regarding what type of liberty they were interested in is enough for me at this point.

Quoting seb146 (Reply 79):
I refuse to live in fear. I keep my head in the game, but I refuse to live in fear.

Me too, I guess. But the litmust test in my mind is that if shots started ringing out, I'd be thrilled if a responsible citizen legally bearing arms took out the shooter. I can't square an honest assessment of how glad I would be in that event with some abstract declaration that other people ought to feel safe without a weapon in their context just because I feel safe in mine.

That's what freedom is about. And yes, the greater the freedom the higher the attendant responsibility.


User currently offlinecmf From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 81, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 2847 times:

Quoting seb146 (Reply 79):
I refuse to live in fear. I keep my head in the game, but I refuse to live in fear.

  

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 than risk. There are those who do and it is great it is an option for them, but it is a fraction of those who carry.


User currently offlineSmittyone From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 82, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 2841 times:

Quoting cmf (Reply 81):
Very few people live under conditions where carrying a weapon provide more safety than risk. There are those who do and it is great it is an option for them, but it is a fraction of those who carry.

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 there is a legitimate reason specific to that individual to deprive them of that freedom (they are a felon, are mentally impaired, fail to demonstrate proficiency in its use, demonstrate careless handling etc.)

Otherwise it is not a right but a 'priviledge'.


User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7908 posts, RR: 51
Reply 83, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 2839 times:

Quoting seb146 (Reply 76):
I may not agree with what Georgia does, but I live in California. Shoot each other up in Georgia. I will be heart broken by all the death, but don't tell me, from the other side of the country, what I *HAVE* to do in my state. And, yes, vice versa.

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 to the teeth and California decides to ban all weapons short of completely violating the 2nd Amendment (a federal issue) go ahead

Quoting cmf (Reply 81):
There are those who do and it is great it is an option for them, but it is a fraction of those who carry.

   You do not know this. You may think (and I agree) the current number of accidents is unacceptable, but saying that a fraction is unsafe is close to "speaking out your ***" territory. I'm telling ya, proper firearm handling ensures an extremely, astronomically low chance of killing yourself or other innocents. Almost everyone I know carries it safely. The way I handle firearms, I can honestly look you in the eye and say that I believe I have a higher chance of using it to defend myself and others (~0.0001%) vs hurting myself or others (~0.000001%.) *those percentages are obviously made up, just for illustration

If you don't believe me, just ask the millions of people that don't blast themselves or others away each year. You may retort that the accidents outweigh the defense... you may be right (hard to prove) but I've already agreed that measures can be put in place to work on that



Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently offlinefr8mech From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 5446 posts, RR: 14
Reply 84, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 2834 times:

Quoting seb146 (Reply 79):
So, it is Zero Dark Thirty just around the corner? Gun battles on every street?

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-division in 20 years.

Quoting seb146 (Reply 79):
I choose to live my life such that I never have to deal with any of that.

Some people don't have that option.

Quoting seb146 (Reply 79):
They had no idea what was going to happen.

You prove my point with every word. You don't know what's going to happen in your life. Why not prepare for the unexpected, if you're comfortable doing so.

Quoting cmf (Reply 81):
Very few people live under conditions where carrying a weapon provide more safety than risk.

In your opinion.

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 83):
I'm telling ya, proper firearm handling ensures an extremely, astronomically low chance of killing yourself or other innocents. Almost everyone I know carries it safely. The way I handle firearms, I can honestly look you in the eye and say that I believe I have a higher chance of using it to defend myself and others (~0.0001%) vs hurting myself or others (~0.000001%.) *those percentages are obviously made up, just for illustration

  



When seconds count...the police are minutes away.
User currently offlinecmf From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 85, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 2821 times:

Quoting Smittyone (Reply 82):
Otherwise it is not a right but a 'priviledge'.

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 about everyone who argue that they carry for safety are actually fooling themselves.

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 83):
You do not know this. You may think (and I agree) the current number of accidents is unacceptable, but saying that a fraction is unsafe is close to "speaking out your ***" territory. I'm telling ya, proper firearm handling ensures an extremely, astronomically low chance of killing yourself or other innocents. Almost everyone I know carries it safely. The way I handle firearms, I can honestly look you in the eye and say that I believe I have a higher chance of using it to defend myself and others (~0.0001%) vs hurting myself or others (~0.000001%.) *those percentages are obviously made up, just for illustration

It doesn't matter how safe you are. By having a gun you and those around you are more likely to be a gun victim.
http://www.iansa.org/system/files/Ri...20Gun%20in%20the%20Home%202011.pdf


User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7908 posts, RR: 51
Reply 86, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 2819 times:

Quoting cmf (Reply 85):
It doesn't matter how safe you are. By having a gun you and those around you are more likely to be a gun victim.

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 people are the blatantly irresponsible people. What I have done and what millions of people do every year all their life is completely safe and result in exactly 0 accidents.

but you know what, if my odds of killing myself raise 1/100000th of a percent, I'm fine with those odds. Can't live in a bubble I guess

I clear all guns before handling them, sometimes, multiple times
Keep the guns on safe (minus functionality checks)
I never point them at anyone else
I don't act all gangster and put my finger on the trigger when holding them (minus functionality checks)
Only my defensive gun has rounds in it except for the range

If I encounter something bad in the middle of the night, I'd

Call 911
Lock the door
Not go looking for trouble
Even if the door gets kicked down, I'd never just shoot some shadowy figure
Even if I see it's a guy I don't know, I'd draw the gun and not shoot unless I see a threat to my life

Look at the first 5 things I posted... I'd have to accidentally break every one of my rules to accidentally shoot someone. Yes, sometimes a gun on the table points at someone when they walk past it, or handing it to someone may point at their toe if I'm not careful. That's about the only rule of mine that ever gets broken. The odds of for some reason loading the gun, not clearing it, accidentally pointing the gun at someone, accidentally having my finger on the trigger, accidentally pulling the trigger, and accidentally having it off safe are so low that's why I said 0% before. Ok, maybe it's 0.00000001%. It just doesn't happen.

And the second set of circumstances is exactly what someone without a gun would do, except for when I see a guy trying to kill me and I know I'm gonna die, I have a fighting chance.



Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently offlinefr8mech From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 5446 posts, RR: 14
Reply 87, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 2813 times:

Quoting cmf (Reply 85):
It doesn't matter how safe you are. By having a gun you and those around you are more likely to be a gun victim.

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 a gun than if there wasn't a gun in the home.

Just like a skydiver is more likely to die in a skydiving accident than a non-skydiver. Scuba vs. non-scuba. Smoker vs. non-smoker.

We get it and accept it and do everything we can to mitigate it.

Call it a lifestyle decision. Doesn't that give us a free pass from the left?



When seconds count...the police are minutes away.
User currently offlineSmittyone From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 88, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 2808 times:

Quoting cmf (Reply 85):
Where did I argue they should not have the right to carry?

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.


User currently offlinecmf From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 89, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 2807 times:

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 86):
And the second set of circumstances is exactly what someone without a gun would do, except for when I see a guy trying to kill me and I know I'm gonna die, I have a fighting chance.

Read the report. It doesn't matter how safe you are.

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 87):
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 a gun than if there wasn't a gun in the home.

So don't argue that you carry for safety.

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 87):
Call it a lifestyle decision. Doesn't that give us a free pass from the left?

And you have to make it a left/right thing again.

It is extremely counterproductive when stereotypical opinions about politics is taking precedence over what is said and often over what is right and wrong. Have you really not noticed that I only bring up politics in comments to someone else. I've certainly noticed how you get all up in arms whenever something is claimed to be right wing, NRA propaganda or anti corporate. Yet you use being leftist or just mentioning government as an argument for it being wrong. Maybe that is your lifestyle decision, but it sure isn't helpful in a constructive discussion.


User currently offlinefr8mech From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 5446 posts, RR: 14
Reply 90, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 2800 times:

Quoting cmf (Reply 89):
So don't argue that you carry for safety.

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 should something bad happen.

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 87):
Doesn't that give us a free pass from the left?

I guess I should have used a "smiley".



When seconds count...the police are minutes away.
User currently offlinecmf From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 91, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 2791 times:

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 90):
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 should something bad happen.

How does that not fall under the description of "for safety"?

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 90):
I guess I should have used a "smiley".

No, you should not have made the comment. Even with a smiley it would just have been an attempt at making an out of place point.


User currently offlinefr8mech From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 5446 posts, RR: 14
Reply 92, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 2787 times:

Quoting cmf (Reply 91):
No, you should not have made the comment. Even with a smiley it would just have been an attempt at making an out of place point.

So, you've lost your sense of humor? The comment was made tongue-in-cheek. I apologize that you were offended.

Quoting cmf (Reply 91):
How does that not fall under the description of "for safety"?

Because, whether I leave the house with the gun or not, I feel the same level of "safe", regardless of where I plan to go that day.

I speak for myself. I'm a fairly confident person who doesn't spook easy.

Some folks may carry for "safety", I do not. I carry for "options".

[Edited 2013-03-13 15:28:50]


When seconds count...the police are minutes away.
User currently offlinecmf From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 93, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 2780 times:

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 92):
The comment was made tongue-in-cheek.

Hardly.

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 92):
Some folks may carry for "safety", I do not. I carry for "options".

How is "options" not "for safety"?


User currently offlinefr8mech From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 5446 posts, RR: 14
Reply 94, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 2778 times:

Quoting cmf (Reply 93):
How is "options" not "for safety"?

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 or sell something within a specified time at a set price.
The privilege of demanding fulfillment of a contract at a specified time.
A stock option.
The right of the holder of an insurance policy to specify the manner in which payments are to be made or credited to the policyholder.
Baseball The right of a major-league team to transfer a player to a minor-league team while being able to recall the player within a specified period.
Something chosen or available as a choice.
An item or feature that may be chosen to replace or enhance standard equipment, as in a car.
Football An offensive play in which a back, usually the quarterback, has the choice of running with the ball or throwing a forward pass.

Safety:
The condition of being safe; freedom from danger, risk, or injury.
A device designed to prevent accidents, as a lock on a firearm preventing accidental firing.
Football
A play in which a member of the offensive team downs the ball, willingly or unwillingly, behind his own goal line, resulting in two points for the defensive team.
One of two defensive backs; a safetyman.

Apparently, the concept is hard for you to grasp.

I don't feel more safe with a gun. I don't feel less safe without a gun. I feel nothing, as it pertains to the gun. All the gun does is provide another option.

I don't know how else to say it.



When seconds count...the police are minutes away.
User currently offlineseb146 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 11657 posts, RR: 15
Reply 95, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 2774 times:

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 86):
I'd have to accidentally break every one of my rules to accidentally shoot someone.

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 who know what they are doing. But, there are others who hear a twig snap outside their window and just open fire.

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 84):
You don't know what's going to happen in your life. Why not prepare for the unexpected, if you're comfortable doing so.

Which is why I live in the suburbs. I still could get run over by a bus or shot or any number of things. But, I don't let that control my life. I have better things to do. I do know where I can and can not go where i have a lesser chance of being shot or run over. Like I said: I keep my head in the game.

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 84):
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-division in 20 years.

In your original statement I quoted, you make it sound like you live in a death trap, drive a Honda 1500 on the 405 and live in the most inner of the inner city and the Gestapo have set up camp on the outskirts of town.

Quoting Smittyone (Reply 80):
But the litmust test in my mind is that if shots started ringing out, I'd be thrilled if a responsible citizen legally bearing arms took out the shooter. I

Like in a dark theater? Like in a crowded political rally? Columbine and Sandy Hook were pretty clear where shots were coming from, but if there is a crowd and shots ring out, where are they coming from? I am more concerned with the mentality of "shots fired! I'll fire back where I thought I heard the shots from." That is very VERY dangerous.



Life in the wall is a drag.
User currently offlinefr8mech From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 5446 posts, RR: 14
Reply 96, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 2764 times:

Quoting seb146 (Reply 95):
In your original statement I quoted, you make it sound like you live in a death trap, drive a Honda 1500 on the 405 and live in the most inner of the inner city and the Gestapo have set up camp on the outskirts of town.

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 Ford Flex on a fairly benign road.

Quoting seb146 (Reply 95):
Like I said: I keep my head in the game

Same here.

Quoting seb146 (Reply 95):
Like in a crowded political rally?

The one guy who came forward and said he was armed, didn't shoot randomly, did he? And, if there were others in that crowd that were armed, they didn't shoot randomly either, did they?



When seconds count...the police are minutes away.
User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7908 posts, RR: 51
Reply 97, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 2760 times:

Quoting seb146 (Reply 95):
Problem is: some of them ignore that when faced with crisis.

 
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 embolden, people might get scared, etc... some simple preplanning (ie deciding not to go hunting the criminal, just locking the door or whatever) can prevent this, though, I think

Quoting seb146 (Reply 95):
Like I said: I keep my head in the game.

I do too, and I agree. Can't get too wrapped around paranoia. That being said, if you keep your thoughts straight and be safe, you can carry a gun harmlessly. I'll be honest, I don't always carry... I haven't even gotten my carry permit for FL yet. I keep it in my car if I'm driving through a shady area, otherwise it stays at home

Quoting seb146 (Reply 95):
Like in a dark theater? Like in a crowded political rally? Columbine and Sandy Hook were pretty clear where shots were coming from, but if there is a crowd and shots ring out, where are they coming from? I am more concerned with the mentality of "shots fired! I'll fire back where I thought I heard the shots from." That is very VERY dangerous.

I see where you're coming from, and that makes sense, but that isn't what happens... I haven't heard of too many (if any) cases where this happens. It is quoted a lot though

On the flip side, a lot of accidental/negligent shootings get swept under the rug by some of my compadres. Neither side has it 100% right, IMO



Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently offlinecmf From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 98, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 2760 times:

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 94):
Apparently, the concept is hard for you to grasp.

I don't feel more safe with a gun. I don't feel less safe without a gun. I feel nothing, as it pertains to the gun. All the gun does is provide another option.

I don't know how else to say it.

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 it isn't for your safety.


User currently offlineseb146 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 11657 posts, RR: 15
Reply 99, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 2748 times:

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 97):
a gun may embolden, people might get scared

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 fire when they hear a twig snap outside their window not realizing it is just the wind or someone who lives in the house. Some gun owners do have sanity. Others do not.

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 77):
. To provide additional options if very bad things happen.

What extent are those "very bad things" where a gun is involved? In a suburban area? Or even rural Montana, for example? Keep in mind, there are no bears in eastern Montana. The worst they would have is coyotes.



Life in the wall is a drag.
User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7908 posts, RR: 51
Reply 100, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 2746 times:

Quoting seb146 (Reply 99):
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 fire when they hear a twig snap outside their window not realizing it is just the wind or someone who lives in the house. Some gun owners do have sanity. Others do not.

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 me stop and think about everything. Before I heard that I think I'd be going through the house flipping on lights but why?

Now having a family changes the dynamic quite a bit, I'd obviously make my way/fight my way to my family. But really, I don't see any justification for shooting a "shadowy figure" in the dark. That's how bad things happen



Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently offlineSmittyone From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 101, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 2730 times:

Quoting seb146 (Reply 95):
But, there are others who hear a twig snap outside their window and just open fire.

As recently advocated by the Vice President. Head of the team figuring out what to do about gun violence.

Quoting seb146 (Reply 95):
I am more concerned with the mentality of "shots fired! I'll fire back where I thought I heard the shots from." That is very VERY dangerous.

Agreed, but it doesn't seem to be happening very often. In the current anti-gun environment the press would be ALL OVER it if it were. Unlike the instances where a citizen carrying a weapon actually makes a positive difference...that news is typically not well reported in my experience.


User currently offlinefr8mech From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 5446 posts, RR: 14
Reply 102, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 2715 times:

Quoting seb146 (Reply 99):
What extent are those "very bad things" where a gun is involved?

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 where people are just minding their own business and get shot at.

I'm sure none of those folks expected to be in a shooting the day it happened.

I guess we'll disagree. You think that an individual should only carry a gun when there is a higher (how much higher?) probability of being in an incident. I think someone should be able to carry a gun where ever and whenever they want.

I'm of the opinion that the person who carries only when he feels threatened is more of a danger than someone who carries all the time. The occasional carrier will feel that it is novel. He may actually get a thrill from carrying a gun in a the environment he enters. It may even embolden him.

I just carry one all the time. It's part of my "leave the house kit". Just like my keys, my wallet, my cell phone and my money clip. It is not novel. It is not new. It is not thrilling. It just is.

Quoting seb146 (Reply 99):
The worst they would have is coyotes.

Which, given the right circumstances, can cause you great harm.

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 97):
a lot of accidental/negligent shootings

A true accidental shooting is a very, very rare thing. It usually comes from a malfunctioning firearm. I saw one, just once, when an AR15 "slam-fired" after the first round was fired. The firearm was immediately disassembled and the "lower kit" discarded.

Just about any other inadvertent discharge is a result of negligent handling.

To add to DeltaMD90's list:
-Never hand over a firearm that you haven't physically verified is cleared.
-Never accept a firearm that you haven't physically verified is clear.



When seconds count...the police are minutes away.
User currently offlineCalebWilliams From United States of America, joined Dec 2008, 314 posts, RR: 0
Reply 103, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 2715 times:

Quoting seb146 (Reply 99):
The worst they would have is coyotes.

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 started getting stalked by some aggressive coyotes. By keeping his calm he, he was able to walk out of the situation back to residence where more formidable fire power was available.



Caleb Williams MSP AUS STL AMS CPH LGW YYZ
User currently offlineSmittyone From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 104, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 2707 times:

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 102):
I think someone should be able to carry a gun where ever and whenever they want.

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 favor of not carrying.

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 102):
I just carry one all the time. It's part of my "leave the house kit". Just like my keys, my wallet, my cell phone and my money clip. It is not novel. It is not new. It is not thrilling. It just is.

I'm thankful that some small percentage of the population choose to take on this responsibility. They are the "Well-Regulated Militia" of 2013.


User currently offlineseb146 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 11657 posts, RR: 15
Reply 105, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 2702 times:

Quoting Smittyone (Reply 104):
until they give the government some specific reason to take that right away
Quoting Smittyone (Reply 104):
some small percentage of the population choose to take on this responsibility. They are the "Well-Regulated Militia" of 2013.

These statements bother me. There are those who allude to taking on the government because the government is suspending the Constitution and we need to take up arms to the government doesn't take away our gun rights.

I got news for you: The government already took rights away when they decided DOMA and Patriot Act and warrantless wiretaps were legal. No one on the right wanted to take up arms against the government over that. But, touch any gun and there is a frenzy of militia and overthrow talk.



Life in the wall is a drag.
User currently offlinecmf From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 106, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 2698 times:

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 102):
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 where people are just minding their own business and get shot at.

So now it is to give you an option in cases such as Newtown, etc. but somehow it is not about safety....

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 102):
The occasional carrier will feel that it is novel

Do something habitually and you get sloppy. Just nature of the beast.

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 102):
Just about any other inadvertent discharge is a result of negligent handling.

Why on earth should they not be included in accidents?

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 102):
To add to DeltaMD90's list:
-Never hand over a firearm that you haven't physically verified is cleared.
-Never accept a firearm that you haven't physically verified is clear.

Those are straight forward that people at least agree on. What about a bit more complicated stuff?
- How about medicines?
- How about alcohol?
- How about deaths, divorce, other negative events?

Quoting seb146 (Reply 105):
No one on the right wanted to take up arms against the government over that.

Wanted to take up arms, LOL. They were busy dreaming it up.


User currently offlinefr8mech From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 5446 posts, RR: 14
Reply 107, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 2694 times:

Quoting cmf (Reply 106):
So now it is to give you an option in cases such as Newtown, etc. but somehow it is not about safety....

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 extinguisher does not make you safer, that in fact, it may be more dangerous. In my opinion (I was a firefighter for 10 years and left the department as a Captain), if you have the time to use a fire extinguisher, you have the time and opportunity to flee a fire. Only in some narrow circumstances (escape cut-off by fire, for one) does the fire extinguisher provide some level of protection.

Again, too me it's a frame of mind. If you think it's about safety, feel free.

Quoting cmf (Reply 106):
Do something habitually and you get sloppy. Just nature of the beast.

Yup. That's why I practice, practice and practice. So, that I'm used to handling the firearm correctly and safely.

Quoting cmf (Reply 106):
Why on earth should they not be included in accidents?

It's semantics. I've grown up in a safety culture and the first thing you learn are that there are rarely any true accidents. An accident implies that something is unavoidable. Inadvertent discharges from a firearm are almost never unavoidable. Much like industrial accidents, rules have to be ignored for a firearm to be "accidentally" discharged.



When seconds count...the police are minutes away.
User currently offlineseb146 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 11657 posts, RR: 15
Reply 108, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 2694 times:

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 107):
Much like industrial accidents, rules have to be ignored for a firearm to be "accidentally" discharged.

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. Those are classified as "accidents".



Life in the wall is a drag.
User currently offlineSmittyone From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 109, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 2674 times:

Quoting seb146 (Reply 105):
These statements bother me. There are those who allude to taking on the government because the government is suspending the Constitution and we need to take up arms to the government doesn't take away our gun rights.

I got news for you: The government already took rights away when they decided DOMA and Patriot Act and warrantless wiretaps were legal. No one on the right wanted to take up arms against the government over that. But, touch any gun and there is a frenzy of militia and overthrow talk.

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 wouldn't it!

Please do me a favor and go back to re-read what I wrote.

By "until they give the government some specific reason to take that right away" I meant that people should have the right to carry unless they do certain specific things (like commit a crime, have a drug/alcohol/psych problem etc., domestic violence etc.) that would prompt the government to take those rights away. I suspect you would concur with me that the government should take weapon rights away if an individual does certain irresponsible/risky things?! The only reason I even said it is because I do not agree with the extreme gun rights people who believe that the government should practically never be allowed to take gun rights away.

Likewise, I think that properly screened and trained people like Fr8Mech exercising their right to carry are a sort of modern-day militia (= armed citizenry, well regulated because they have to obtain state permits) because their potential presence gives criminals an element of doubt regarding who might be armed. Due to the uber-restrictive laws in New Jersey where I live, the only people who are armed are police and criminals! Yet NJ does not have even close to the lowest rate of gun murder in the country - it is middle of the pack.

Agree with my opinions or not, that is all I was trying to say. Nothing to do with overthrowing the government. As a matter of fact I have in the past made the same point you did about the hypocrisy of talking 'government overthrow' over the Second Amendment but having no problems with the recent egregious tramplings on the First and Fourth.


User currently offlinecmf From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 110, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 2669 times:

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 107):
do you feel safer when you walk into your home and you know that you have a fire extinguisher?

Yes I do.

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 107):
I'll argue that a fire extinguisher does not make you safer, that in fact, it may be more dangerous.

  
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 but not using it would bring you out free. The main danger with fire extinguishers is that you use them on wrong type of fire.

So just as with guns fire extinguishers must be used properly. But there are major differences, e.g. how often have you seen a fire extinguisher start a fire?

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 107):
Yup. That's why I practice, practice and practice. So, that I'm used to handling the firearm correctly and safely.

Yet you objected when I stated I want proficiency tests before you are allowed to carry in public. Insisted the programs in place do provide enough training even though it can be a few hours of theory, good part used to fill out the form and then topped out with a single shoot. That is what it takes for a person who has never touched a gun to be CCW qualified in Florida.

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 107):
An accident implies that something is unavoidable

No, an accident indicates something was unintentional. Most accidents are easily avoidable but that doesn't stop them from being accidents.

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 107):
Much like industrial accidents, rules have to be ignored for a firearm to be "accidentally" discharged.

So an industrial incident due to rules being ignored is an accident but an incident with a firearm due to roles being ignored isn't? yet again you have different rules for guns and everything else.


User currently offlineseb146 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 11657 posts, RR: 15
Reply 111, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 22 hours ago) and read 2660 times:

Quoting Smittyone (Reply 109):
I meant that people should have the right to carry unless they do certain specific things (like commit a crime, have a drug/alcohol/psych problem etc., domestic violence etc.)

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 and thoughful explination as to why the average American should be able to carry military style weapons.



Life in the wall is a drag.
User currently offlineSmittyone From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 112, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 17 hours ago) and read 2647 times:

Quoting seb146 (Reply 111):
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 and thoughful explination as to why the average American should be able to carry military style weapons.


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 should we ever find that necessary later on.

I've shared my viewpoint and recognize the futility of trying to change anyone else's but because you asked nicely I will explain why I think this way specifically regarding the military weapons.

Men that I respect and admire greatly - George Washington, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson etc. NEVER dreamed for most of their lives that they would have to rebel against their king and country. But life is funny and these men found themselves fighting desperately for liberty. As a result of their war and life experiences they deliberately chose to enshrine the right of average people to own the military weapons of their day. They were not stupid and must have known that there were downsides to this but they did it anyway.

So as remote as the need for weapons might seem in 2013, I see no wisdom in disregarding a liberty that these men deliberately secured for us. For me it is that simple. If you disagree I'm fine with it.

[Edited 2013-03-15 03:36:57]

User currently offlinePanHAM From Germany, joined May 2005, 9376 posts, RR: 29
Reply 113, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 17 hours ago) and read 2644 times:

Good idea. In certain parts of Berlin, teachers would love to carry guns into class rooms.

That would give them respect with certain pupils.



E's passed on! That parrot is no more! He has ceased to be! E's expired and gone to meet 'is maker!
User currently offlineSmittyone From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 114, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 15 hours ago) and read 2626 times:

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 107):
An accident implies that something is unavoidable. Inadvertent discharges from a firearm are almost never unavoidable. Much like industrial accidents, rules have to be ignored for a firearm to be "accidentally" discharged.
Quoting cmf (Reply 110):
So an industrial incident due to rules being ignored is an accident but an incident with a firearm due to roles being ignored isn't? yet again you have different rules for guns and everything else.

Fr8mech, I recommend you 'pop smoke' and get out of this discussion now with your sanity intact.

Your analogy equating firearms accidents to industrial accidents could not have been clearer, yet there's literally no connection between your statement in reply 107 and the conclusion drawn in 110 other than some of the words being the same. Absolutely maddening.


User currently offlinefr8mech From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 5446 posts, RR: 14
Reply 115, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 14 hours ago) and read 2616 times:

Quoting seb146 (Reply 108):
Those are classified as "accidents".
Quoting cmf (Reply 110):
Most accidents are easily avoidable but that doesn't stop them from being accidents.
Quoting cmf (Reply 110):
So an industrial incident due to rules being ignored is an accident but an incident with a firearm due to roles being ignored isn't? yet again you have different rules for guns and everything else.


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 that are unavoidable. We tend to use the words incident. In the case of an inadvertent discharge of a firearm, I call it negligent. I hold it to a higher standard. I suggest that if a negligent discharge of a firearm causes harm, someone needs to be held accountable. That just isn't the case when you're dealing with accidents.

Accidents are things to be dealt with by insurance companies, negligence is to be dealt with by the authorities. Can I make it any clearer?

Call it semantics, call it being nit-picky, but here where I work, we are trying to eliminate the word accident from our vocabulary when it comes to injuries. And, I think that crosses over very well to a firearms safety mentality.

Quoting cmf (Reply 110):
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 but not using it would bring you out free. The main danger with fire extinguishers is that you use them on wrong type of fire.


You missed my meaning about the fire extinguisher. If you have the time and opportunity to use a fire extinguisher, you should also have the time and opportunity to flee the fire. In fact, we taught that a fire extinguisher, first and foremost, should be used to secure your exit path if there is any doubt.

Quoting cmf (Reply 110):
how often have you seen a fire extinguisher start a fire?


Not once, but I've seen them make a fire worse.

Quoting cmf (Reply 110):
Yet you objected when I stated I want proficiency tests before you are allowed to carry in public.


Where? I believe everyone should be able to prove they can properly handle a firearm and hit the target before they should be allowed to carry.



When seconds count...the police are minutes away.
User currently offlineDarksnowynight From United States of America, joined Jan 2012, 1362 posts, RR: 3
Reply 116, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 14 hours ago) and read 2610 times:

Quoting Smittyone (Reply 112):

Men that I respect and admire greatly - George Washington, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson etc. NEVER dreamed for most of their lives that they would have to rebel against their king and country. But life is funny and these men found themselves fighting desperately for liberty.

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 about them.

I realize we're all tired of hearing that they were slave owners, and want to believe they were just going with the times, but unfortunately, these guys really were that bad when it came to the concept of liberty. In fact, if liberty was what they were fighting for, they'd have fought for the British, and not against. It was after all, British Governor Lord Dunmore who emancipated slaves working in the colonies. Fucking 90 years before the "Land of the Free" got around to it. A total of 100,000 slaves eventually left their masters to fight for the British, with about 15,000 of those leaving the colonies altogether when the American Revolution and later, the War for Independence were concluded. However, this leaves what? Well, after casualties, close to 60,000 slaves who were returned to their masters after the fact for one thing.

Thomas Jefferson, being

A. a slave owner who regularly claimed owning slaves accounted for more of his wealth and productivity than his real estate did

and

B. not a total idiot


saw the potential problem with this.

60,000 folks, once considered property, then freed, then re-enslaved. Would you take that well? I mention all this because that, and no reason other, is the birth of our "beloved" 2nd amendment.

To say that Jefferson, Washington, et al fought for "Liberty", as we (think we) know it today is a lot like saying the Iraq War was about WMDs. And I'm sure some folks even believed that at the time, but that's just not true.


What they actually fought over is a concept called equality of property, and this is very different than what is discussed today when folks say liberty. And while this did have the implication of removing nobility, it only benefited those that already had a voice before the Revolution. Since the War for Independence was fought chiefly so that the colonies could determine their own future, even that notion is something of a sham when we consider that that happened primarily because the colonies did not want to pay for the immense cost they incurred during the Seven Years War two decades prior.

Concepts like Personal Liberty were as foreign to Jefferson and Washington as they were to the King, who by the way, owned zero slaves.

If you really want someone to admire where things like Liberty are concerned (as opposed to a guy who cribbed someone else's notes in an attempt to gin up a cause he had a personal and financial stake in), I would say John Locke and Francis Bacon are far better candidates. I honestly don't know what they'd say about a gun control debate though...


Again, I don't mean to pick on you personally, but this idea that we should allow what we all know is an optional hazard to continue, solely on the basis that some aristocrats who were rightly scared shitless that 60,000 people might not like being slaves again and thusly decided to arm free, male property owners over 200 years ago is just...

... Well you can probably guess what I think of that based on how I said that.

There are reasons to own guns (and lots and lots more not to), and I do believe that that can be entertained if done with a hefty load of regulation and supervision.

But using the logic of "I have a right to this because some jerks who started a war when they decided they didn't want to pay for the previous war they started said I could", is not at all a good reason.

If you like, there are piles of links one can read up on about all this with a quick Google search.

Quoting Smittyone (Reply 112):

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 should we ever find that necessary later on.

Harder in the sense that it's harder to shoot someone without a gun, yes. But I honestly don't think the next gov't overthrow (if there will be one) will utilize that type of violence anyway. Even with all the guns in the world, the gov't still has a pretty hefty advantage for a number of reasons.

What's the old saw... "Amateurs fight wars with tactics and strategy. Winners focus on Logistics", something like that IIRC. I guess what I mean is that our gov't can quell a rebellion here a lot more easily than we imagine, no matter how many misguided libertarians take to the streets.

Quoting Smittyone (Reply 112):
As a result of their war and life experiences they deliberately chose to enshrine the right of average people to own the military weapons of their day. They were not stupid and must have known that there were downsides to this but they did it anyway.

Again, Slave Insurrections and Tories were their only concerns when drafting this. If anything else could have been true, the slaves would have been emancipated on the spot.

An argument could be made that there was additional concern about how the Natives might behave, but the fact that American troops destroyed most of the Iroquois and Cherokee villages located near major colonial population centers during the War for Independence pretty much removes that concern. I guess we didn't like those guys fighting for the British either. In fact, the more one learns about how many folks were able to be convinced to fight against us on the cheap, the more one has to wonder who the real bad guy was then anyway, but I digress...

As well, there was (and this is pretty important) a great deal less difference then between what could be considered a military weapon and a civilian one at the time. As this is not at all true today, nor would it have been reasonably foreseeable then, it's worth considering that owning an unlimited amount of semi-automatic rifles, without having to register them, is probably not what they had in mind anyway.



Posting without Knowledge is simply Tolerated Vandalism... We are the Vandals.
User currently offlineSmittyone From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 117, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 11 hours ago) and read 2597 times:

Quoting Darksnowynight (Reply 116):

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:

Quoting Darksnowynight (Reply 116):
I realize we're all tired of hearing that they were slave owners, and want to believe they were just going with the times, but unfortunately, these guys really were that bad when it came to the concept of liberty. In fact, if liberty was what they were fighting for, they'd have fought for the British, and not against. It was after all, British Governor Lord Dunmore who emancipated slaves working in the colonies. Fucking 90 years before the "Land of the Free" got around to it. A total of 100,000 slaves eventually left their masters to fight for the British, with about 15,000 of those leaving the colonies altogether when the American Revolution and later, the War for Independence were concluded. However, this leaves what? Well, after casualties, close to 60,000 slaves who were returned to their masters after the fact for one thing.

I think the idea that 'fear of slaves circa 1787 = driver of gun rights' is overstated. Even granting my own bias as a descendent of Irish immigrants who is not at all interested in hearing people 'cry in their beer' about the past, I find attributing the right to bear arms primarily to such a base motivation hard to square with the rest of what I read in the Constitution and Bill of Rights.

Quoting Darksnowynight (Reply 116):
To say that Jefferson, Washington, et al fought for "Liberty", as we (think we) know it today is a lot like saying the Iraq War was about WMDs. And I'm sure some folks even believed that at the time, but that's just not true.

You are absolutely right that our current equation of "Liberty" with "Human Equality" is not what they had in mind, but it doesn't mean that what they were pursuing was worthless.

The aspect of 'Liberty' I'm talking about, that I think is right and just is the (revolutionary for the time) concept that government derives its authority from the people, who deliberately surrender some of their freedoms in order to facilitate specific ends, rather than the government granting what privileges it sees fit for people to have.

And yes I see the irony in that, considering how selectively that liberty was shared. Even so, this was a new idea and somebody actually had to incur personal risk to make it the law of the land, if only for a subset of the 'people'. For that I think the powdered wig Philadelphia crowd deserves a lot of credit. The French Revolution, where the 'equality' piece of the enlightenment came to a head (sorry...LOL) would not have been possible without ours. Even today the world continues to march toward human equality and we're nowhere near achieving it yet. So to hold Washington and company accountable for failing to get there in one leap seems unfair.

How that relates to guns IMO is that at the end of the day the ultimate political freedom a person or group of people have is to try to take back ALL of the individual freedoms of action that they had heretofore surrendered to the Government, and provide for their own security etc. I think this becomes justified if/when a government fails to hold up its end of the bargain listed in the Constitution (hence why oaths are to support and defend the Constitution itself against enemies foreign and domestic). And as hard as it is to envision the need to do this in the United States, my earlier point was that the colonists never saw it coming either. IIRC that is central to a comical misunderstanding in the story of Rip Van Winkle...

Small arms may not be leverage that they once were given today's technology but they are all people have. Great insurgencies have been kindled with little else and the flames fanned by defections from the military and support from abroad. Likewise, just as the American Revolution was actually a civil war, so would the next one be...it's naive to assume that the only 'enemy' of the Constitution in that scenario would be fully equipped military units. That is why the reaction to perceived threats to the 2nd Amendment are so visceral while at the same time the First and Fourth are being eaten up like the dots in a Pacman game.

Having said all of that doomsday bit please believe that I am NOT wearing a tin foil hat. For the time being.

Quoting Darksnowynight (Reply 116):
Since the War for Independence was fought chiefly so that the colonies could determine their own future, even that notion is something of a sham when we consider that that happened primarily because the colonies did not want to pay for the immense cost they incurred during the Seven Years War two decades prior.

I agree that it seems the colonists were hardly being 'oppressed' compared to a lot of other examples, but neither were the Crown's costs accrued in some altruistic effort by the King to make life better for the colonists. That war was about bringing France to heel for the political and economic benefit of Great Britain, and the colonists supported the effort with soldiers and supplies the whole time it was underway. The war also took place on their home soil to a large extent. That it turned out to be more costly and less lucrative than the Exchequer preferred doesn't mean it was suddenly on the Colonists to fund.

When you consider the kind of people who would cross the ocean to settle in the New World, and the relative lack of structure that they became accustomed to there you can see why they would chafe at the kinds of inconveniences that Europeans of that time would have been thrilled to 'suffer'. But you can also see how the former colonists' desire to avoid that situation with their new government are reflected in the Constitution, including the Second Amendment.

Edit:

Whether that means that concerns they might have had in 1787 are justification to continue to observe the 2nd Amendment today is a question upon which reasonable people can disagree...but I personally think that we change it at our peril because:

a) It will continue changing the nature of the relationship between people and their government in the same way that the erosions of the First and Fourth Amendments have; and

b) I think people have a basic right to provide for their own security and not be 100% beholden to the government, because we have seen that no government is completely effective in that regard, even if that comes with some hazards. In your analysis you call this an optional hazard but I disagree on the optional part.

Either way if people want to substantially limit gun rights they should amend the Constitution; and I would be the first one to support it per my oath! The current trend of executive and legislative fiat is the wrong answer.

Quoting Darksnowynight (Reply 116):
As well, there was (and this is pretty important) a great deal less difference then between what could be considered a military weapon and a civilian one at the time. As this is not at all true today, nor would it have been reasonably foreseeable then, it's worth considering that owning an unlimited amount of semi-automatic rifles, without having to register them, is probably not what they had in mind anyway.

Civilian weapons at that time were typically MORE powerful than their military equivalents...rifled weapons with higher muzzle velocities and far better range and accuracy compared to the smoothbore muskets the infantry used to hammer at each other from 100 yards, adorned with a bayonet that they nearly never used unless charged by cavalry. Not sure what the import of that is but it seems to suggest that they weren't terrified of citizens having potent weapons.

Likewise, the 'public safety' difference between an AR-15, even with a 30-round magazine, and say a five-round deer rifle is less than it might seem as evidenced by Charles Whitman in that clock tower in Texas. The assault weapon is the favorite of the lone gunman indiscriminately spraying gunfire into a crowd, but to me the grassy knoll guy taking people out from hundreds of yards away would be far more difficult to guard against. Look at the mayhem the DC snipers caused. Granted they used an assault rifle for that but employed 'low rate of fire' tactics. Never mind what a simple hunting shotgun would do in a crowd.

[Edited 2013-03-15 09:51:57]

User currently offlineseb146 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 11657 posts, RR: 15
Reply 118, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 11 hours ago) and read 2590 times:

Quoting Smittyone (Reply 112):
I don't advocate overthrowing the government over gun rights. But disarming the populace would sure make it harder to do so should we ever find that necessary later on.

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 could get run over by a bus. I better train every day to jump out of the way of the bus. I could get smashed by an out of control airplane. Better dig a pit. I could get stung by 1000 wasps. Better stock up on epenephrin. I could be attacked by a rabid badger walking down Van Ness. Better wear thick clothing for that! Where does it end?

Besides: the best way to keep from taking up arms against the government is to VOTE!!! And don't vote because corporations tell you this candidate or that ballot measure is good. Do your own research and VOTE!!! Freakin' V-O-T-E!!! People are upset about this last election. If they voted, fine. A lot of people didn't vote. VOTE and you know you did your part to legally overthrow the government.

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 115):
we try not to use the word accident, because in many minds accidents are things that are unavoidable.

"Incident" makes it sound less bad than it really is. Trigger happy people, like the grandmother who shot her granddaughter, have accidents. Not incidents. She was negligent in pulling the trigger, but it was an accident, no matter how you slice it.

Speaking of: why eliminate the word "accident" at work? If someone slips and breaks their arm, it is an accident. They didn't mean to. If someone is slicing a tomato and cuts their finger, it was an accident. They didn't mean to. An accident is something you didn't mean to happen. I can see how killing your granddaughter in the dark is a grey area, but I could call it an accidental misunderstanding. Not an incident. "meh... it was just an incindent. Move along. Nothing to see. Just an incident."



Life in the wall is a drag.
User currently offlineSmittyone From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 119, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 11 hours ago) and read 2585 times:

Quoting seb146 (Reply 118):
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 could get run over by a bus. I better train every day to jump out of the way of the bus. I could get smashed by an out of control airplane. Better dig a pit. I could get stung by 1000 wasps. Better stock up on epenephrin. I could be attacked by a rabid badger walking down Van Ness. Better wear thick clothing for that! Where does it end?

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 aspects of life:

"The time for taking all measures for a ship's safety is while still able to do so. Nothing is more dangerous than for a seaman to be grudging in taking precautions lest they turn out to have been unnecessary. Safety at sea for a thousand years has depended on exactly the opposite philosophy."

Your mileage may vary.

Quoting seb146 (Reply 118):
Besides: the best way to keep from taking up arms against the government is to VOTE!!! And don't vote because corporations tell you this candidate or that ballot measure is good. Do your own research and VOTE!!! Freakin' V-O-T-E!!! People are upset about this last election. If they voted, fine. A lot of people didn't vote. VOTE and you know you did your part to legally overthrow the government.

Well of course we need to vote. And we do.

What happens when those in power thank you for voting and then cast aside the results at the point of a gun when they don't like the results? Tell me that couldn't happen.

Quoting seb146 (Reply 118):
"Incident" makes it sound less bad than it really is. Trigger happy people, like the grandmother who shot her granddaughter, have accidents. Not incidents. She was negligent in pulling the trigger, but it was an accident, no matter how you slice it.

Speaking of: why eliminate the word "accident" at work? If someone slips and breaks their arm, it is an accident. They didn't mean to. If someone is slicing a tomato and cuts their finger, it was an accident. They didn't mean to. An accident is something you didn't mean to happen. I can see how killing your granddaughter in the dark is a grey area, but I could call it an accidental misunderstanding. Not an incident. "meh... it was just an incindent. Move along. Nothing to see. Just an incident."

Incident is actually a much more serious/worse term to use in a workplace. In every workplace I've been in, incident means bad thing that happened because somebody didn't do what they were supposed to!

Killing one's granddaughter sure as hell isn't an "accident", at least we shouldn't just accept that excuse. It is an incident whose root cause is someone's failure to follow the rules of marksmanship (specifically 'know your target and what's behind it'). By viewing it this way we empower ourselves to take action to prevent it rather than accepting it as a twist of fate or 'act of god' that something bad happened.


User currently offlinefr8mech From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 5446 posts, RR: 14
Reply 120, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 10 hours ago) and read 2583 times:

Quoting seb146 (Reply 118):
If someone slips and breaks their arm, it is an accident.


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 informed of the problem? What were the weather/environmental conditions, if outdoors? What were the lighting conditions, if indoors?

Quoting seb146 (Reply 118):
If someone is slicing a tomato and cuts their finger

Was the person wearing protective gloves? Was the person trained to use the knife or slicer? Were safety guards in place? Was the person distracted? Was the knife dull? Was the slicer operating correctly? Is the lighting adequate?

We root cause every single incident. The word accident makes it sound better than it is. "Oh, he fell and broke his arm? What a terrible accident. Now, how about those Yankees?"

That's why, as far as I'm concerned, there are rarely any true accidental firearm discharges. An inadvertent discharge comes from negligent handling of the firearm.

Quoting seb146 (Reply 118):
Not an incident. "meh... it was just an incindent. Move along. Nothing to see. Just an incident."


You clearly read nothing I wrote. Maybe Smittyone is right or maybe you just want to disagree with me for some reason, but if you can't get it into your mind: that I hold the word "accident" as a cop-out, I don't know what else to say or do.

I know what the definitions are. But, if you read just about any of the safety journals, you'll find that my interpretation is consistent with the current safety culture thinking.

Again, I will repeat what I said earlier in post 115: "Accidents are things to be dealt with by insurance companies, negligence is to be dealt with by the authorities."

[Edited 2013-03-15 10:00:54]


When seconds count...the police are minutes away.
User currently offlineSmittyone From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 121, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week ago) and read 2554 times:

Quoting Darksnowynight (Reply 116):
Again, Slave Insurrections and Tories were their only concerns when drafting this. If anything else could have been true, the slaves would have been emancipated on the spot.

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 of Rights drive directly at preserving individual "liberty" (admittedly different from 'equality' as we've both discussed before) and reflecting a concern, almost a paranoia about overreaching and tyrannical government. Agreed?

So we focus on the Second Amendment, and you posit that this one out of the ten is only there because the drafters of the Constitution wanted to make sure that the propertied white guys would retain the freedom to bear arms to keep the slave insurrections and Tories under control. Here's the thing: the people in the legislature, the ones who could pass laws limiting the ability of citizens to bear arms, were those propertied white guys who had the most to lose from slave insurrections and/or Tory revolts! It doesn't stand to reason that Madison or Jefferson were afraid of losing their ability to keep renegade slaves in line due to their peers in the legislature passing laws banning firearms, because those men would be screwing themselves too. If slave revolt was the primary concern then there would be no reason for the Second Amendment because nobody in a position to infringe on the right to bear arms would have incentive to do so (thereby disarming himself).

So the only way that the inclusion of a Second Amendment in the Bill of Rights makes any sense to me is that the founders were concerned about the overreach of the federal government and/or inability or unwillingness of government at any level to secure the safety of citizens (the need for a well-regulated militia as well as personal security). This is consistent with the concerns for individual liberties reflected in the other amendments.


User currently offlineseb146 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 11657 posts, RR: 15
Reply 122, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week ago) and read 2550 times:

Quoting Smittyone (Reply 121):
So the only way that the inclusion of a Second Amendment in the Bill of Rights makes any sense to me is that the founders were concerned about the overreach of the federal government and/or inability or unwillingness of government at any level to secure the safety of citizens

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 were going on what we had known and what we did not want. We did not want soldiers quartered in our homes, we did not want the government telling us what we can and can not say. IMO, the government got out of control with Patriot Act. They took away our rights with that. Very few people wanted to fight over that. But, now that the allusion of taking away guns is out there, we must fight the government? How?

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 120):
Maybe Smittyone is right or maybe you just want to disagree with me for some reason, but if you can't get it into your mind: that I hold the word "accident" as a cop-out,

"Incident" and "accident" are two different things to me. "Incident" is something that we know has a high possibility of happening. Two airplanes coming close to each other over Los Angeles? Incident. Two planes coming close to each other over Nunavut? Accident. That's how I see it.

Quoting Smittyone (Reply 119):
Admiral Chester Nimitz sent to his commanders after a typhoon caught the fleet unprepared

Of all groups of people, the Navy would have better knowledge of an approaching typhoon! They should have been prepared because they are in the Pacific with a typhoon they know is coming.

However, if I am jogging along the street and a bus runs up onto the sidewalk mowing me down, how can I prepare for that?



Life in the wall is a drag.
User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7908 posts, RR: 51
Reply 123, posted (1 year 6 months 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 2546 times:

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 argue definitions, but we're missing the point.

These 'accidental shootings' don't happen because guns are just dangerous, they almost ALWAYS happen because someone uses poor handling/judgement.

A kid doesn't 'accidentally' get a gun a kills another kid, the parent is NEGLIGENT and keeps it out in the open

A father doesn't 'accidentally' shoot his daughter sneaking out, he NEGLECTS to identify a target before shooting.

A guy doesn't 'accidentally' shoot himself in the leg cleaning his gun, he neglects to do a lot of things actually


Really, the only true and honest accident is a mechanical malfunction. Dropped guns, depending on the model, can go off. The only kinda close call I had was an old Bulgarian handgun, it doesn't have a spring for its firing pin (something like that) and it had a lot of cosmoline on it/in it. Gave it a good cleaning, but not good enough. I was observing its mechanics and how it operated and I fed in a loaded magazine. Let the slide come forward and when I took the rounds out, I noticed the back of the bullet had a little dimple in it... the firing pin got stuck forward and it took a bit of effort for it to move back.)

Had there been more cosmoline, there might have been more resistance and it might have discharged a round.

***BUT***

Even though this almost became an accidental discharge (a true accident) I still had the gun pointed in a safe direction the whole time. That is why you do these redundant, often silly things. You know the gun is unloaded, you checked a million times, but you still don't point it at anyone, for example.

Even if I had a slam fire, the safety I employed would have prevented anyone/me from getting hurt.



Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently offlineSmittyone From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 124, posted (1 year 6 months 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 2519 times:

Quoting seb146 (Reply 122):
"Incident" and "accident" are two different things to me. "Incident" is something that we know has a high possibility of happening. Two airplanes coming close to each other over Los Angeles? Incident. Two planes coming close to each other over Nunavut? Accident. That's how I see it.

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 about bad things that happen, likelihood of occurrence is not the discriminating factor between them. Fr8mech's post do a great job of explaining the distinction.

Quoting seb146 (Reply 122):
Of all groups of people, the Navy would have better knowledge of an approaching typhoon! They should have been prepared because they are in the Pacific with a typhoon they know is coming.

However, if I am jogging along the street and a bus runs up onto the sidewalk mowing me down, how can I prepare for that?

Well, certainly. There are things that we cannot prepare for, or situations where the cost of preparing is not justified.

Nimitz's point is simply that the most dangerous attitude is not wanting to take precautions because most of the time they turn out to have been 'a waste of time'. The reason I said it was because you were questioning the value of trying to be prepared.


User currently offlineDarksnowynight From United States of America, joined Jan 2012, 1362 posts, RR: 3
Reply 125, posted (1 year 6 months 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 2508 times:

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 115):

Quoting cmf (Reply 110):
how often have you seen a fire extinguisher start a fire?


Not once, but I've seen them make a fire worse.

Yup. Those classifications exist for a reason.

Quoting Smittyone (Reply 117):
So to hold Washington and company accountable for failing to get there in one leap seems unfair.

On the surface, yes. But we need to understand that I say what I do not to hold them accountable for anything per se (as that would indeed be an indication of a temporal bias), on the other side, we need to not go overboard assuming their intentions were more noble than they actually were. My gripe with all that is more a problem I have with the gross oversimplification of these events than anything else.

In all intellectual honesty, yes, I agree that throughout history we do not get from point A to B in one jump. Especially when what defines "point B" is constantly being moved to the right anyway.

But just the same, I strongly disagree with the notion that something that was much more equal to a hostile corporate takeover 235 years ago means "Everyone gets guns, because, um, freedom!", which, frankly, is a lot of what we hear.

Quoting Smittyone (Reply 117):
Likewise, just as the American Revolution was actually a civil war, so would the next one be...it's naive to assume that the only 'enemy' of the Constitution in that scenario would be fully equipped military units. That is why the reaction to perceived threats to the 2nd Amendment are so visceral while at the same time the First and Fourth are being eaten up like the dots in a Pacman game.

Indeed. And the War of Northern Aggression, as some still like to call it, wasn't even our first rebellion (as the United States, I mean) anyway.

Now, what does that have to do with Slavery?

By the mid 18th century, Virginia, Georgia, and South Carolina all had "Slave Patrols", whose job it was to make sure that blacks were not congregating where they did not belong, gathering in groups or engaging in suspicious activity (we've come a long way since then. right?). The demonstration of force and constant vigilance was not only a factor, but was actually written into local law at the time; law which, by the way, did survive the Revolution and was not superseded until after 1865. The basic strategy was to ensure and impress upon the slaves that whites were armed, watchful, and ready to respond to insurrectionist activity at all times. But here's where it gets related to the 2nd...

These colonies and later states required white men and female plantation owners* to participate in the patrols and to provide their own arms and equipment, although the rich were permitted to send white servants in their place.

During the Continental Congress, it was representatives from these states (and New Jersey!, in case we need another reason not to like that place!) who pushed hardest for the 2nd amendment.

So why do I think, besides some documentation available online, that these guys were a lot more concerned about a Slave Revolt (or many) than we want to admit today?


Well, for one thing, the fact that it actually happened is pretty compelling. In fact, in the aftermath of that event, Georgia went so far as to stop importing slaves for freakin' ten years, on the principle that homegrown slaves were less likely to revolt. They also (along with most other colonies at the time) made it the duty of the Militia to prevent these uprisings, and actually hunt down and mow down participants in said revolts. Though this was done mostly before Due Process was a thing, it's worth noting that these militias frequently went as far as Piking the heads of captured slaves and suspected insurgents. Quelling and arming against slave revolts was indeed very serious business throughout the 18th century.

For another, and far more damning against Jefferson himself is him actually saying "the day which begins our combustion must be near at hand; and only a single spark is wanting to make that day to-morrow".

That can be taken as a reference to any part of the American Revolution (but probably not the actual War for Independence), but it was said much after all that, and in reference to Stono and the estimated 250 attempted uprisings since then.

Like I said before, there are piles of stuff to read on it, and it's pretty eye-opening for the most part.

In fairness to Jefferson, he was known to have something of a revulsion for the Golden Triangle and the methods by which slaves were brought to America. But for the ones already here, I guess we're cool with that or something. Anyway, he was certainly a complex individual, but I draw the line before we get to admiration.

Quoting Smittyone (Reply 117):

I agree that it seems the colonists were hardly being 'oppressed' compared to a lot of other examples, but neither were the Crown's costs accrued in some altruistic effort by the King to make life better for the colonists. That war was about bringing France to heel for the political and economic benefit of Great Britain, and the colonists supported the effort with soldiers and supplies the whole time it was underway.

Yes and no. What IMO, that war was really about were the fundamental differences between the methodologies of Colonization between the British and the French.

It's no coincidence that the term Laissez Faire is French. Their colonies in North America were by far a great deal more autonomous and resultantly, had a much more "Roman" approach to dealing with the Natives. Active trading and hunting were the primary revenue sources there, as opposed to the British approach of simply mowing down every bit of forestry they could to place tobacco and wheat farms in its place.

As British colonists moved inexorably westward, these differences created a very predictable tension. Given that most of the Natives and the French did have closely allied purposes in this matter, it's no surprise they sided up, hence the American reference to that war as "French and Indian."

So yes, I can see where you look at it the way you do. But what I see is a war that most likely wouldn't have happened without English colonists appropriating themselves ridiculous amounts of land all over the place. It is true that much of that war's fighting also occurred in Africa & India (in fact, I recall Winston Chruchill referred to it as the "Real" first world war). But the bulk of the fighting was indeed on behalf of the colonies.

English colonists, for whatever reason, found it outrageous that they should have actually had to pay for any of that (since they weren't being asked to pay more than a portion of it anyway) at all.

And as for supplies and soldiers, we need to remember that those soldiers who lived through the war hung onto large amounts of land pillaged from Natives and French settlements that were there before. It wasn't exactly a sacrifice, in the strictest sense.


We all know the British tried out the Stamp Act and the Tea Tax to help pay for some of this, given the Crown had spent Half it's freakin' Treasure (yes, literally), on the affair. But what's not generally appreciated is that the King repealed those acts over a decade before the American Revolution and the War for Independence.

Now the right and wrong of this can be debated all night, but this is where I get off saying "they didn't want to pay for a war they started so they started another one instead."

Quoting Smittyone (Reply 117):
Whether that means that concerns they might have had in 1787 are justification to continue to observe the 2nd Amendment today is a question upon which reasonable people can disagree...but I personally think that we change it at our peril because:

a) It will continue changing the nature of the relationship between people and their government in the same way that the erosions of the First and Fourth Amendments have; and

I pretty much see it that way as well. Where I'll differ is that the 1st & 4th have been so totally mutilated that I can't see why anyone would really be concerned about not having a gun to shoot at the gov't with. The most important battles have been lost. For now (as history is fond of saying)...

Quoting Smittyone (Reply 117):
b) I think people have a basic right to provide for their own security and not be 100% beholden to the government, because we have seen that no government is completely effective in that regard, even if that comes with some hazards. In your analysis you call this an optional hazard but I disagree on the optional part.

I guess we'll have to disagree on that one then. I've yet to be convinced that anyone needs a gun; not even to the extent that one needs an automobile.

Quoting Smittyone (Reply 117):
Either way if people want to substantially limit gun rights they should amend the Constitution; and I would be the first one to support it per my oath! The current trend of executive and legislative fiat is the wrong answer.

Absolutely. This is why I advocate re-structuring the 2nd to the point that the gun crowd basically won't recognize it. I have some ideas, but this post is damned long as it is.

Quoting Smittyone (Reply 117):
Likewise, the 'public safety' difference between an AR-15, even with a 30-round magazine, and say a five-round deer rifle is less than it might seem as evidenced by Charles Whitman in that clock tower in Texas. The assault weapon is the favorite of the lone gunman indiscriminately spraying gunfire into a crowd, but to me the grassy knoll guy taking people out from hundreds of yards away would be far more difficult to guard against. Look at the mayhem the DC snipers caused. Granted they used an assault rifle for that but employed 'low rate of fire' tactics. Never mind what a simple hunting shotgun would do in a crowd.

This is why while I support things like the assault weapons ban, when cornered by gun advocates who say 'what are going to do about non-assault weapons', my answer back is 'who said anything about stopping there?'

Quoting Smittyone (Reply 119):
What happens when those in power thank you for voting and then cast aside the results at the point of a gun when they don't like the results? Tell me that couldn't happen.

Can and has. But at that point we're already so far beyond the law that debate about guns and the law is pretty much surplus to our needs.

Quoting Smittyone (Reply 121):

The 10 amendments that make up the Bill of Rights drive directly at preserving individual "liberty" (admittedly different from 'equality' as we've both discussed before) and reflecting a concern, almost a paranoia about overreaching and tyrannical government. Agreed?

More or less. But we have to remember some things. First, there wasn't one gov't they needed to worry over, but several. The colonies really weren't united in any way until well after the War for Independence, and well after that bit of the Constitution was drafted. As I mentioned above (and seriously, there's a shitload to read on this stuff), slavery revolts really were a kind of a big deal at the time, and Tories were still over 20% of the population. Add that to the estimated 30% of the population that slaves made up and what do we have? A percentage the whites considered a good reason to own guns, that's what.

Anyway, at the time, the concern wasn't so much whether the gov't would/should be overreaching, but which gov't would be. As you say below...

Quoting Smittyone (Reply 121):
Here's the thing: the people in the legislature, the ones who could pass laws limiting the ability of citizens to bear arms, were those propertied white guys who had the most to lose from slave insurrections and/or Tory revolts! It doesn't stand to reason that Madison or Jefferson were afraid of losing their ability to keep renegade slaves in line due to their peers in the legislature passing laws banning firearms, because those men would be screwing themselves too.

This is true. As I mentioned above, states maintained Militias for a number of reasons (including the whole slave revolt thing), but they did have varying degrees of standards and armament. The Feds (in their infancy) had their ideas on this too, and taking cues from they states (as they pretty much had to then), sought to standardize much of this. Both the Constitution and the State Legislatures saw eye to eye on that one, and both sought to enshrine this "solution."


*Female Plantation Owners. Ok, so by now you may be wondering why I *'d this. Talking of Liberty, Freedom, and suchforth intentions by the Founding Fathers, etc. This was by far, the biggest social development to come out of Revolutionary times. After the war, women still couldn't purchase land. But they could inherit it. And that is huge because it marks the first time in known history that a Woman could own property. Yes, that includes Rex Consorts, hell even Queen fucking Elizabeth the 1st, none of those ever owned property.

Though most of what we recognize as our freedoms today are actually much more derived from the French and to a lesser (but still important!) extent, the Haitian Revolution than our own, the egalitarian notion that woman could be sort of equal to men in some regards was about the most important step forward until the Emancipation Proclamation. Since after the war we decided Lord Dunmore didn't matter & all...


Well, if you got this far Smitty, I'll thank you for wading through this Geezer-length post. As I said before, my main objection (and reason for depositing this & the previous post in this thread) is that clearly a lot of us really don't have a good understanding of the historical context of this issue. History won't end here and we are all part of it. I just think that clinging to ideas that actually only accidentally wound up awesome (in theory) isn't the best answer for everything. Anyway, have a good one.


Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 123):
These 'accidental shootings' don't happen because guns are just dangerous, they almost ALWAYS happen because someone uses poor handling/judgement.

This is the bulk of my objection to firearms + ordinary citizens. You can say "well it's just some people's poor judgement" all you want. But the problem is

A. There's really nothing you can do to fix people's judgement without messing with freedoms far more important than the 2nd amendment.

B. There are a damned lot of people in the USA now.

If you really think just anyone should have a gun, go ahead and take a drive through city traffic... ...for 6 hours. You'll see all the judgement you need to. And by people who have been trained and certified by the state to be on the road. Now imagine them all with guns, and no training. That's what we have as of now.

You're right. It's not the hardware, it's the people. And absent a valid reason, they should be separated.



Posting without Knowledge is simply Tolerated Vandalism... We are the Vandals.
User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7908 posts, RR: 51
Reply 126, posted (1 year 6 months 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 2499 times:

Quoting Darksnowynight (Reply 125):
If you really think just anyone should have a gun

What? Where have I said that? Firearms are definitely not for everybody, and even after training I think some people are better without them

Quoting Darksnowynight (Reply 125):
and no training

I've already advocated training for citizens.

And agree or disagree with a lot of NRA positions, but politics aside, they really do promote proper and safe handling of weapons.



Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently offlineSmittyone From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 127, posted (1 year 6 months 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 2494 times:

Quoting Darksnowynight (Reply 125):
Well, if you got this far Smitty, I'll thank you for wading through this Geezer-length post.

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.


User currently offlinefr8mech From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 5446 posts, RR: 14
Reply 128, posted (1 year 6 months 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 2483 times:

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 the process.

[Edited 2013-03-16 10:44:07]


When seconds count...the police are minutes away.
User currently offlineseb146 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 11657 posts, RR: 15
Reply 129, posted (1 year 6 months 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 2446 times:

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 126):
they really do promote proper and safe handling of weapons.

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 is the answer. I don't believe it is.

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 123):
These 'accidental shootings' don't happen because guns are just dangerous, they almost ALWAYS happen because someone uses poor handling/judgement.

Yes. The same people who claim to uphold NRA and all they stand for are the same ones who end up shooting someone over an "accident" or "incident" however you want to word it.

Quoting Smittyone (Reply 124):
Nimitz's point is simply that the most dangerous attitude is not wanting to take precautions because most of the time they turn out to have been 'a waste of time'.

So, because I live life on my terms knowing risks, I am dangerous? I should just pack all the time because that is "taking precautions"? There are many things in life where precautions should be taken. Last call and a girl/guy is hanging all over you "please take me home!"? Yeah. Live in suburbia and armed to the teeth? Not so much.



Life in the wall is a drag.
User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7908 posts, RR: 51
Reply 130, posted (1 year 6 months 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 2444 times:

Quoting seb146 (Reply 129):
The same people who claim to uphold NRA and all they stand for are the same ones who end up shooting someone over an "accident" or "incident" however you want to word it.

   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 very rarely ever have accidents/incidents. Explain yourself

Edit: I'll add that all of the NRA supporters I know are very safe with guns. It's the wanna be thug gangster types that could care less about the NRA that are more unsafe. I know it's not a 100% guaranteed thing, but don't let your disagreements with the NRA make you say untrue/unverifiable statements

[Edited 2013-03-16 21:42:18]


Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently offlineDarksnowynight From United States of America, joined Jan 2012, 1362 posts, RR: 3
Reply 131, posted (1 year 6 months 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 2409 times:

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 126):

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 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 support in the way profiling individuals who are more likely to abuse fire arm possession privileges? I'm not talking about background checks, since most people would fail one of those if everything they actually did over a lifetime would DQ fire arm possession if it were available to know.

This is the problem with gun supporters pointing to their support of Background Checks as though it is some form of absolution from what is essentially a position devoid of logistical and social responsibility. It does nothing to keep firearms out of future criminals and un-diagnosed problem individuals.

Restricting the sale to the point where manufactures can no longer do business, however, does do something about that.


And of course there is the issue of Social Associations. I see no reason, for example, to allow the sale of a weapon to someone who once belonged to the KKK. Or someone with a troubled credit history. Or someone who's been hospitalized for depression.

My opinion, if we want to go the "background" route, is that if you can't pass a CHBC, credit check and pysch evaluation sufficient to be, say a Secret Service member, you shouldn't have a gun.

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 126):
I've already advocated training for citizens.

And agree or disagree with a lot of NRA positions, but politics aside, they really do promote proper and safe handling of weapons.

And that's really not enough, nor is it what I'm talking about. Safety is a factor, but so are social and stability quotients. It's ok if you don't agree. We'll get there one way or the other.



Posting without Knowledge is simply Tolerated Vandalism... We are the Vandals.
User currently offlinefr8mech From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 5446 posts, RR: 14
Reply 132, posted (1 year 6 months 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 2394 times:

Quoting seb146 (Reply 129):
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 is the answer. I don't believe it is.


Advocating firearms ownership has always been a priority for the NRA, along with firearms safety.

Quoting seb146 (Reply 129):
Yes. The same people who claim to uphold NRA and all they stand for are the same ones who end up shooting someone over an "accident" or "incident" however you want to word it.


Really? I wonder if you can provide a source for that? I, like Delta, seriously doubt that folks that have taken NRA sponsored safety classes and defensive classes are involved in very many firearms incidents.

Quoting seb146 (Reply 129):
So, because I live life on my terms knowing risks, I am dangerous? I should just pack all the time because that is "taking precautions"?


Not at all. Just like me (and hundreds of thousands (millions?) of others)...I have weighed the risk/benefit analysis of owning/carrying a firearm and have come out on the "benefits out weigh the risk" side of the analysis. You come out on the other side.

Quoting Darksnowynight (Reply 131):
Restricting the sale to the point where manufactures can no longer do business, however, does do something about that.


So you're for the complete abrogation of the The Second Amendment? I wonder...when that doesn't work, what other rights will you be willing to do away with in the name of safety?



When seconds count...the police are minutes away.
User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7908 posts, RR: 51
Reply 133, posted (1 year 6 months 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 2374 times:

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 130):
I'll add that all of the NRA supporters I know are very safe with guns.

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 father and we have torn him new ones a few times and today (I believe) he is more or less safe with guns. Whenever he's with me or my friends at least, he knows not to be stupid. In his case, though, it was just ignorance

He is the reason I'm for mandatory training even if one has grown up with guns and shooting since the individual was 8 years old or something.

Quoting Darksnowynight (Reply 131):
What, for example, do you support in the way profiling individuals who are more likely to abuse fire arm possession privileges?

I don't claim to know all the answers, but I'm willing to hear suggestions and debate them. You bring up good points, and I'm too busy to debate them at the moment, about to leave for the day. I do agree that we may be putting too much faith in simple background checks, yet I'm sure that would actually cut down on a lot of people. My fear is that restrictions will get too prohibitive. What if someone can't buy a gun because they filed for bankruptcy 20 years ago? I'm not saying that's what you are saying but I wouldn't pass someone to put that bill forward.

Sorry, I've got to go, but hold me to it, I don't want to just cop out and ignore what you're saying



Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently offlineseb146 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 11657 posts, RR: 15
Reply 134, posted (1 year 6 months 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 2370 times:

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 130):
I can make an educated guess that the people that actually follow the NRA's safe handling advice very very rarely ever have accidents/incidents. Explain yourself
Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 133):
I'll admit that I did forget about one friend who is an NRA supporter and terrible with guns.

That proves my point. I know there are responsible members of NRA but there are also irresponsible members of NRA. Those irresponsible ones run around screaming for the total control and support of NRA and paint people like me as Nazis.

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 132):
Advocating firearms ownership has always been a priority for the NRA, along with firearms safety.

I see: They stand up for gun manufacturers. They are a lobby shop, it sounds like. They want more guns to be manufactured and bought. Kinda like the Bush administration propping up banks and car manufacturers. Business comes ahead of the people.



Life in the wall is a drag.
User currently offlinefr8mech From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 5446 posts, RR: 14
Reply 135, posted (1 year 6 months 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 2359 times:

Quoting seb146 (Reply 134):
They stand up for gun manufacturers. They are a lobby shop,
Quoting seb146 (Reply 134):
Business comes ahead of the people.


Of course, they're a lobbying organization, no different than the hundreds that circle the capital. Yes, they represent the manufacturers, but I see them representing their membership and advocating for all gun owners and those who want to be gun owners and those who believe in The Bill of Rights.

I think it's quite the leap to say they put business ahead of the people.



When seconds count...the police are minutes away.
User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7908 posts, RR: 51
Reply 136, posted (1 year 6 months 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 2323 times:

Quoting seb146 (Reply 134):
Those irresponsible ones run around screaming for the total control and support of NRA and paint people like me as Nazis.

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 have anything to do with it

Quoting seb146 (Reply 134):
I see: They stand up for gun manufacturers. They are a lobby shop, it sounds like. They want more guns to be manufactured and bought. Kinda like the Bush administration propping up banks and car manufacturers. Business comes ahead of the people.

I see this being said a lot, so I'm not speaking just to you, but they're a lobby group just like the hundreds out there. I don't think their ultimate motive is $$$$$, I highly doubt the organization is free of that kind of corruption, but honestly, I think they are mostly in it for the protection of rights. They say things that many people disagree with, including me on many points, but I don't take it to the next step and assume there is some cynical motive.

No one accuses the ACLU of existing just to suck up money under the guise of freedoms, even though IDK some abortion clinics might support the ACLU so they can get money by providing abortions. Just because there may be some crooked guys in the NRA and gun manufacturers may support the NRA for money doesn't mean the organization by and large is all about money, or even a big chunk of it is for money.

I have yet to see any proof, just accusations that this gun buying scare is created by NRA and company (I'd argue it's common sense--talk of assault weapons being banned = more people trying to buy them, the NRA doesn't have to fuel the fire)



Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently offlineFlyDeltaJets From United States of America, joined Feb 2006, 1881 posts, RR: 2
Reply 137, posted (1 year 6 months 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 2298 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Superfly (Reply 8):
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.

Guards and teachers are not the same thing.

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.

That law does not prevent licenced owners from carrying in that school zone.

All I say is a person with a gun is not the end all crime stopper people make them out to be.



The only valid opinions are those based in facts
User currently offlineDarksnowynight From United States of America, joined Jan 2012, 1362 posts, RR: 3
Reply 138, posted (1 year 6 months 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 2279 times:

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 132):


Quoting Darksnowynight (Reply 131):
Restricting the sale to the point where manufactures can no longer do business, however, does do something about that.


So you're for the complete abrogation of the The Second Amendment? I wonder...when that doesn't work, what other rights will you be willing to do away with in the name of safety?

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 table, yes. Something being an amendment doesn't mean it has to stay that way. Prohibition is gone and Civil Rights are an actual thing now. As others before me have said, it's a Constitution, not a Suicide Pact. Ours is indeed more rigid than most of what you see in the developed world, but that doesn't mean hard = impossible...

So, if what it takes to get our problem under control is scrapping out the 2nd, and coming up with something more manageable, why wouldn't I be for it? If you read what I wrote above, it's pretty clear that I don't have a lot of respect for its origins anyway, and probably won't lose sleep over its absence. I've gotten pretty far without ever needing a gun, and I'm sure I can go the rest of my life as such with no regrets.

Originally, I wasn't going to respond, because honestly, your reply came off as a little bait-y (if that wasn't your intention, then you can have my apologies). But I have to admit you raise an interesting question. Why is it that you feel the need to conflate a more responsible stance on gun possession with the desire to roll back completely un-related rights? Yes, I did say that the 1st and 4th (which let's be honest, matter a whole lot more to you, me and everyone here) have been abused almost beyond recognition. But I'm both unhappy about that, and curious as to why that just doesn't seem to matter as much as guns do, given the obvious value and necessity differences.

In any case, rights are not without responsibility, even at the Constitutional level. I can't defame someone or incite rebellious activity without a reasonable expectation of consequences.
Where I have a big problem with 2nd amendment crowd (aside from their mostly poor understanding of what it actually means and where it comes from...), is that they not only aren't willing to accept more responsibility, but they want to roll back a lot of the progress that's been made in starting to correct that mess. This is really inexcusable for a civilized society and if the gun crowd wants to stay the gun crowd, they're going to have to learn to compromise. Or lose it altogether.

Just as example, I drive a car that can safely maintain about 20mph over the limit on most American Highways, and sport a Body Mass that can probably operate a bit over the legal BAC if I really wanted to. I can look at those restrictions as demeaning or condescending to my abilities, or I can consider them the cost of having the Driver Privileges I need to do my job, and in general, point my life where it needs to go.

Fair or not, we need to start treating guns this way, instead of selfishly resisting any and all regulation on the basis of "I can handle it, dude..."


As for re-building the 2nd not "working", well, I guess we'll have to disagree on that one. Empirical evidence from similar nations and statistics tend to favor ditching the 2nd altogether, so that's where my money is going.



Posting without Knowledge is simply Tolerated Vandalism... We are the Vandals.
User currently offlinefr8mech From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 5446 posts, RR: 14
Reply 139, posted (1 year 6 months 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 2273 times:

Quoting FlyDeltaJets (Reply 137):
That law does not prevent licenced owners from carrying in that school zone


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 another state...even a LEO.

Quoting FlyDeltaJets (Reply 137):
All I say is a person with a gun is not the end all crime stopper people make them out to be.


And, I have never said it is...in fact:

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 26):
There is no easy answer to this. There is no panacea


So, while allowing folks who want to carry into the school is not the final answer, it may well certainly be part of the answer...if there is a final answer. Quite simply, I don't see where preventing law-abiding, state sanctioned people from carrying their firearms into certain areas does anything but disarm those may be able to do something about the guy that will willfully ignore the signs.

Quoting Darksnowynight (Reply 138):
(if that wasn't your intention, then you can have my apologies).


It was a little "baity", but a valid question. Exactly what rights are you willing to give up in the pursuit of safety. I've argued that the exercise of First and Fourth Amendments may have led to more misery and death than the exercise of the Second Amendment.

We have limited our rights under those amendments, as we have limited our rights under the Second, but they still present the sticky problem that our exercise of those rights, even limited as they are, cause pain and suffering, in some cases.

So, after the Second Amendment is gone, do we go after the others and limit them further?



When seconds count...the police are minutes away.