Gun rights/control/ownership

[Vhale]

If every public school has one, that's several billion each year.

 

You quoted me and made this comment. But given what you quoted I'm not sure why. I've mentioned more than once I doubt people would pay for it, so I assume this is agreeing.

 

How would they be "random"? You would need a permit, and they got hired as a teacher. People trust "random" pilots.

 

People trust priests too. That ended up well, didn't it?

[Alpha1]

Providing evidence like you have is fine; I respect that. But continued, biased, unsupported negative prejudice? That's tiresome.

 

I know what you're referring to, so I understand.

 

I've mentioned more than once I doubt people would pay for it, so I assume this is agreeing.

 

Yeah, I saw that.

 

People trust priests too. That ended up well, didn't it?

 

Well, if someone wants to argue like this, then you could say the same about armed guards.

 

http://www.live5news.com/story/20520776/resource

 

"SLED agents arrested a former Hampton County Sheriff's Office deputy over the weekend accused of sexually abusing a child while working as a school resource officer."

[Vhale]

I don't mind saying that about armed guards at all. Heh, the one we had at my old workplace got "trapped" in the guard shack because there was a raccoon outside of it

 

That and I suppose it ties in with the Air Force scandal atm where they've fired 31 people now because they never bothered doing background checks on the daycare workers.

 

http://www.airforcetimes.com/mobile/news/2...31-fired-121912

Edited January 18, 2013 by Vhale

[philpot123]

Beyond what catstaff posted, I'd say incentive assumes a choice. Though I haven't read on this yet so I'm guessing. But most of the people I know were okay with a guard, even if they weren't sure it would help. They were less okay with random teachers having guns in their desks. And of course, cynical that anyone would really budget it given that education funding has been slashed of late.

Very few people that I know of suggested forced armament of teachers in schools or mandatory armed guards or anything of the sort, so a choice was involved from the beginning. It's more about rights. If a teacher has the legal permission to carry a concealed weapon, I still fail to see why it's such a ridiculous concept that they be allowed to carry that weapon ON THEIR PERSON into the workplace...

[Kestra15]

Very few people that I know of suggested forced armament of teachers in schools or mandatory armed guards or anything of the sort, so a choice was involved from the beginning. It's more about rights. If a teacher has the legal permission to carry a concealed weapon, I still fail to see why it's such a ridiculous concept that they be allowed to carry that weapon ON THEIR PERSON into the workplace...

Because teaching is a stressful enough profession as it is, and giving them all the chance to carry guns will probably make things worse. And while I am all for a return of order and discipline to the classroom, teachers being allowed concealed firearms is *not* the way to go about it. That's a spark to the tinderbox if ever there was one.

[hazeh]

As a student, I would feel incredibly uncomfortable and not safe if I knew a teacher was armed on campus. I would request to be transferred to a different school even, if I knew that was going on. I wouldn't put my own children in a school like that either.

 

Too much room for accidents or other dangerous situations when you place dangerous weapons in direct vicinity of schoolaged children. I find it more risky than the extremely rare chance that a gunman would show up and a teacher would even get to engage him.

 

The shootings at schools are so rare, I just don't see the benefit of putting armed guards all over the place. Where are you going to get these people? How are you going to license and test these people? How are you going to pay these people?

 

I'd much rather have resources going to the police force, you know, that thing we're already supposed to pay to protect us. There are a lot more lives to be saved on the street on any given day than in a school yard.

[demonicvampiregirl]

Very few people that I know of suggested forced armament of teachers in schools or mandatory armed guards or anything of the sort, so a choice was involved from the beginning. It's more about rights. If a teacher has the legal permission to carry a concealed weapon, I still fail to see why it's such a ridiculous concept that they be allowed to carry that weapon ON THEIR PERSON into the workplace...

What if one teacher who has anger issues decides one day he's had enough and grabs that gun in his desk and open fires on his students?

 

I agree with Shiny Hazard Sign. Guns do not need to be in a teachers possession. I'd rather have cops walking around the school than that. The career school I went to had one that would show up a lot and walk around the school.

[Vhale]

Very few people that I know of suggested forced armament of teachers in schools or mandatory armed guards or anything of the sort, so a choice was involved from the beginning. It's more about rights. If a teacher has the legal permission to carry a concealed weapon, I still fail to see why it's such a ridiculous concept that they be allowed to carry that weapon ON THEIR PERSON into the workplace...

Can someone please explain to me how it was ludicrous and offensive when the NRA suggested providing funds for guards in schools, but Obama signs an executive order to provide incentives for schools to hire resource officers, and no one bats an eye? A resource officer IS an armed guard, an employee of the local police department. I'm having sincere trouble understanding why there was so much backlash when this was an NRA proposal, yet silence when it took the form of an executive order.

 

I do think we need to address healthcare/poverty/fail drug war/bullying as much or more than gun control though.

 

I was replying to this, I feel like we jumped to a different topic somehow.

 

Also, this is /facepalm worthy

This past weekend was/is the Gun Appreciation Day. At 3 different events, people accidentally discharged their weapons and got shot.

Oops

>.<

Edited January 20, 2013 by Vhale

[Fuzzbucket]

If that weren't so awful that would be funny

 

My grandchildren could have been standing there...

[Kestra15]

Also, this is /facepalm worthy

This past weekend was/is the Gun Appreciation Day. At 3 different events, people accidentally discharged their weapons and got shot.

Oops

>.<

...and these people are *safe* to have guns?

 

Terrifying and ironic in equal portions.

[Shienvien]

...and these people are *safe* to have guns?

No, no they are not. It takes some serious talent to make a gun 'accidentally' go off - even dropping a loaded, unlocked and cocked one has only marginal chance of making it fire.

[Kestra15]

No, no they are not. It takes some serious talent to make a gun 'accidentally' go off - even dropping a loaded, unlocked and cocked one has only marginal chance of making it fire.

The fact that the guy with the shotgun was breaking one of the six fundementals of weapon safety made me guess that In seriousness, an ND of that sort should *never* happen if you follow basic safety. So to think people with that level of ineptitude are fundamentally allowed to own weapons is what makes the rest of the world look at the 'right' to bear arms and put it in quotation marks.

Edited January 20, 2013 by Kestra15

[hazeh]

What if one teacher who has anger issues decides one day he's had enough and grabs that gun in his desk and open fires on his students?

 

I agree with Shiny Hazard Sign. Guns do not need to be in a teachers possession. I'd rather have cops walking around the school than that. The career school I went to had one that would show up a lot and walk around the school.

Or if a teacher had an unruly student and decided that waving their gun as a threat would be a good idea?

I would not want my children in that kind of potential environment. There's already corruption in the police force, who are trained and paid to actually go out and prevent situations like that. There are all sorts of teachers out there, and I do not have the resources to sit down with every single teacher at my kid's school and evaluate them to see if I feel like they are fit to keep my kid safe.

 

Teachers exist to teach my children (hopefully). Police exist to protect my children (hopefully).

Obviously, there are always flaws in the system and I can't always expect things to be perfect.

 

But I will not allow my child, or myself, to feel on guard or on edge all the time with the presence of a weapon such as that at the disposal of someone who may or may not be appropriate to wield such a weapon. I do not trust guns. I rarely trust people with guns, unless they are in the police force. And even then, things happen, which only goes to serve that being around guns makes me uneasy.

 

Not saying people don't have a right to own guns (well, I don't think they have the right to own assault rifles, but whatever), but I will take whatever measures to make sure I feel like my family is safe from said weapons.

 

[Shaze]

and i meant if there were no guns the robber wouldnt have one

 

I hope you aren't really serious here. If gun bans were put into effect, the ONLY people to have guns would be the "robbers" - and law abiding citizens would be defenseless.

Your comment sounds like you think that if guns were banned then there would be none? They would cease to exist?

 

Let's put it into perspective.. drugs are illegal/banned. So does that mean that no one has or uses drugs?

 

Exactly.

 

Criminals will always be able to get a gun on the black market if they want to. And believe me, they will not hesitate to do so.

 

I am a proud member of the NRA and a gun owner. I don't hunt, but my reasons for owning firearms are the same as what Phil said in his second post. (And to protect myself and family in my home)

 

100% against gun control of any kind here.

[KageSora]

So, you support just handing guns to everybody, regardless of if they know how to use it?

 

Because that's a lack of gun control.

 

PROPER gun control would require people to demonstrate that they know how to use the gun they want to own, how to be a safe gun owner, how to maintain and store the gun and the ammo, etc. That they're safe to own a gun.

 

Gun control =/= banning all guns.

[Vhale]

/facepalm on the opposite side

 

Supposedly, a 5 year old was suspended for threatening to shoot a friend with a Hello Kitty bubble gun. I say supposedly because it wouldn't be the first time an overzealous school official used a no tolerance rule in a really stupid way. But it also wouldn't be the first time a rotten parent told a very skewed story to the media.

 

Pink Bubble Guns, Oh my!

[Obscure_Trash]

Especially after school shootings, (in my experience at three elementary schools, middle school, high school, and college) schools do tend to be really uptight and strict on the matter for safety, probably their own peace of mind, and they're probably under parental pressure to do so.

 

After Columbine, there was a huge incident at my school and nearly 40 of us were called into the office, lectured for probably around two hours, threatened with suspension, and finally released to class and told we should never do it again. My mom was furious they had gone that far. We were in elementary school and I certainly hadn't been exposed to Columbine.

 

So yeah, I could see it happening (although, as you pointed out, it could very well be a parent-bias in there). Although I haven't actually read the link you posted. x3

Edited January 21, 2013 by SockPuppet Strangler

[Darien]

I hope you aren't really serious here.  If gun bans were put into effect, the ONLY people to have guns would be the "robbers" - and law abiding citizens would be defenseless. 

Your comment sounds like you think that if guns were banned then there would be none?  They would cease to exist? 

 

Let's put it into perspective.. drugs are illegal/banned.  So does that mean that no one has or uses drugs? 

 

Exactly.

 

Criminals will always be able to get a gun on the black market if they want to.  And believe me, they will not hesitate to do so. 

 

I am a proud member of the NRA and a gun owner.  I don't hunt, but my reasons for owning firearms are the same as what Phil said in his second post.   (And to protect myself and family in my home)

 

100% against gun control of any kind here. 

 

I too am a gun owner and a member of the NRA and I agree with you on that...

Edited January 21, 2013 by Darien

[TikindiDragon]

I too am a gun owner and a member of the NRA and I agree with you on that...

Now, see, it's you guys and positions like that which worry me. Because the NRA actually do take an extremist positon, and are not open to any kind of dialogue.

 

Because I'm not arguing for a ban. I'm arguing for better control, better registration, better training. In much the same way we do with vehicles, to be honest. But it's completely impossible to have that sort of discussion with people who simply say, flat out, 100% against everything you suggest.

[Kestra15]

Perhaps we should agree with the NRA and completely relax gun control? It would then just be a 21st century form of Darwinism. Enforce the single ruling that weapons are not allowed beyond the boundaries of the United State, and otherwise leave them to it.

[James]

I do not want to join the discussion really, but has anybody, yet mentioned that the Bill of Rights were mostly done for an easier revolution? The Second Amendment was made so that citizens could arm themselves and fight against an oppressive/corrupt government such as that which our forefathers fought in the American Revolution? Firearms are not kept for hunting, personal safety, or just to own them; rather, they are kept, because our forefathers went through many hassles with the British government. At the time, anyone that did not hunt was probably rich, a well-off farmer, or starving to death.

[TikindiDragon]

I do not want to join the discussion really, but has anybody, yet mentioned that the Bill of Rights were mostly done for an easier revolution? The Second Amendment was made so that citizens could arm themselves and fight against an oppressive/corrupt government such as that which our forefathers fought in the American Revolution? Firearms are not kept for hunting, personal safety, or just to own them; rather, they are kept, because our forefathers went through many hassles with the British government. At the time, anyone that did not hunt was probably rich, a well-off farmer, or starving to death.

Although it has been repeatedly pointed out that if the government really wanted to enforce anything then, given the current levels of military technology the US does, the average citizen wouldn't stand a chance, armed or not.

 

Edited to add: Besides, really? Are you guys *still* that paranoid about us over here in the UK?

Edited January 21, 2013 by TikindiDragon

[Shienvien]

Although it has been repeatedly pointed out that if the government really wanted to enforce anything then, given the current levels of military technology the US does, the average citizen wouldn't stand a chance, armed or not.

A citizen would not. Twenty million citizens, in theory, might.

[TikindiDragon]

A citizen would not. Twenty million citizens, in theory, might.

Assuming you could actually get that many people in the US to agree on something in the first place. And even then there's not much small arms can do against planes, drones and tanks - let alone if the worst came to the worst and the government just decided to drop a nuke on the area.

[PointOfOrigin]

Edited to add: Besides, really? Are you guys *still* that paranoid about us over here in the UK?

I think that right now, they are paranoid about their own government.