This message board is only an archive. Click here to go to the current message board.

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 38

Thread: What if?

  1. #21
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Tennessee
    Posts
    2,210

    Default Re: What if?

    I don't think I could support outlawing handguns for US citizens as a whole.
    I could. In a SandyHookAuroraTucsonPhoenixChicagoBlacksburgColum bine second.

  2. #22
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Cambridge, Ohio
    Posts
    17,667

    Default Re: What if?

    Quote Originally Posted by Out of Order View Post
    ...to quote the estimable Foghorn Leghorn..."Boy's got a mouth like a cannon, always shootin' it off!"...

  3. #23
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    1,083

    Default Re: What if?

    (I have to split this in two.)

    Quote Originally Posted by Moderator View Post
    Fortunately, I wouldn't have to face that moral dilemma but I get what you're saying. If I had to make a choice, I would either donate an equal or greater amount of money to an organization that is working toward restrictions, background checks, etc. or make damn sure that the fund the NRA set up did not include any funding for furthering their agenda of armed personnel in schools.
    In the words of Professor Terguson in Back To School: Good answer!

    There are two separate issues I have with the current position of the leadership of the NRA, but both of them have to do with their (IMO) irresponsibility in bringing anything meaningful to the table.

    First, they are being irresponsible in their unwillingness to accept their part in this multi-faceted issue. They have done nothing but blame everything else other than their own intractable position of continuing to create a culture that worships guns rather than accept that there could possibly be any solution beyond escalation by arming more and more people. IMO

    Secondly, that arming personnel at schools (more on this later) is the only way that children can be kept safe is not only irresponsible, it is dangerous and lazy but it certainly does perpetuate the gun culture and further ensures their future and mission to "educate" Americans about the value of guns in our society. It still ignores the very issue that guns in the wrong hands ARE a problem. Don't ignore that or think that educating people on how to shoot a gun is being responsible and that's where it ends--DEAL WITH IT!!! From what I've gathered, Lanza had been educated on the proper use of guns but should not have had access to them.
    You obviously know more about the leadership on the NRA than I do. Their reluctance to support background checks at gun shows is simply enough for me not to join the organization. Perhaps I should learn more about them. But I do agree with their idea that arming personnel at schools is the best course of action to protect our kids from the type of tragedy experience at the Sandy Hook school setting, and do not believe it to be irresponsible nor dangerous and lazy position. IMO (more on this later).

  4. #24
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    1,083

    Default Re: What if?

    Quote Originally Posted by Moderator View Post
    While I am vehemently against arming personnel at schools, I would have no problem with money being used to train those who want it for self-defense, to retrofit schools to make them safer with such things as bullet proof glass, lobby designs that would make it more difficult to gain access to classrooms, etc. I do not believe that arming personnel could guarantee massacres such as have occurred to date would not happen again. Let's take a few scenarios--shooter gets in the door and knowing or even just suspecting there will be someone waiting for him has taken precautionary measures such as protective armor not to be killed before his goal is accomplished and is able to take out the person who is there to protect the kids and still gets into classrooms. Okay, so do we then have a backup further down the hallway? Good idea, but where is that gun? Hopefully locked away safely to prevent any accidents or having a student or someone else who shouldn't gain access, easily getting to it. Just how far down the hall do we put that person to make sure they'll have time to get to the gun and in the meantime, how many people got shot along the way?
    From what I have read, the single best way to respond to a mass shooter is with an immediate and violent response. Apparently as soon as a mass shooter meets serious resistance, they often kill themselves or surrender the vast majority of times. Time is of the essence in these circumstances. An excellent response time for police would be in the 3 to 5 minute range. But that is excellent responsive times, and often these mass killers can have up to 20 minutes or more with nobody effectively fighting back. I’ve read that the average number of people shot in a mass shooting event when the shooter is stopped by the police is 14. But the average number of people shot in a mass shooting event when the shooter is stopped by civilians is 2.5. Teachers, administration and school staff are already there, and therefore effective reaction response times can be measured in seconds instead of minutes. Yes, teachers aren’t trained cops or SWAT. They don’t need to be. They only speed bumps for the killer until authorities arrive. The longer a shooter has to operate, the more innocent people die. And if the shooter is dealing with an armed response they aren’t killing young, precious, and innocent kids. And arming school officials shouldn’t be mandatory. Make it voluntary with background checks and proper training. I believe a number of schools in Texas already allow trained teachers to carry handguns, and I haven’t read of any of the horrors you envision happening there. Perhaps we should be learning more about them. Also, more districts and states are considering it. But by no means do I believe armed and trained teachers be the only line of security at schools.

    Here’s a thought... and don’t shoot it down right away (sorry couldn’t resist). Steve was a teacher, so he must be familiar with the climate and culture in schools (yeah I know it like a hundred years ago). He also owns handguns. Since he is passionate about the gun debate, perhaps he could take time out of his schedule and attend a CCW class geared towards training teachers and staff. If nothing else, and regardless of his viewpoint upon the outcome, he certainly would be able to write about the subject with authority. Who knows, he might just enjoy it.

    Before you get too up in arms (sorry, couldn't help myself), I will repeat that the second amendment right to bear arms should be maintained but in no way shape or form should it be a carte blanche license for any citizen to have whatever weapon or accompanying ammunition they want.
    Glad to hear it. I agree.

    Restctions on guns will not stop all violence perpetrated with guns but I refuse to believe the solution is throwing up our arms and saying, there's nothing we can do, we'll just have to live with it and continue to escalate by buying more and more of them and reinforce the fear-based mentality that has become so prevalent in the past decade or so. The cycle has to stop. We are better than that. Other nations have proven that they are able to do so. Are we admitting that we aren't capable of the same?
    Call me a pessimist, but no, I don’t believe we are. Not with the rights we enjoy. As a matter of fact I think those who commit heinous crimes and have little regard for human life is on the rise here. And therefore I believe the desire to protect ourselves in a manner that is sound, effective, responsible and legal should be utilized for those who wish to do so.

  5. #25
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    1,083

    Default Re: What if?

    Quote Originally Posted by ~Ally~ View Post
    Is that still what the campaign is hoping to achieve in the year 2013?
    Yes Ally, I believe that is their ultimate goal. If they would claim that as their mission statement they would be tarred and feathered and run out on a rail here. Does anybody honestly think if they would get the legislation they are currently seeking, that they will close up shop? No, they will seek more, and more and more.

    And I believe the name change to the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence was more or less a ploy to sound less extreme and get more donations from the unsuspecting. And apparently it has worked.

  6. #26
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    1,083

    Default Re: What if?

    Quote Originally Posted by Lily Sawyer View Post
    I could. In a SandyHookAuroraTucsonPhoenixChicagoBlacksburgColum bine second.
    I appreciate your honesty. Do you think a common ground can be reached, or are the differences too great for a compromise that would be satisfactory to both sides?

  7. #27
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Maine
    Posts
    14,080

    Default Re: What if?

    I would be interested in seeing the sources you're citing regarding mass murders that have actually been stopped by civilians.


  8. #28
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    1,083

    Default Re: What if?

    Quote Originally Posted by Moderator View Post
    I would be interested in seeing the sources you're citing regarding mass murders that have actually been stopped by civilians.
    I got the information here (but something tells me you already might have know that ). I did not authenticate the statistics, but looking at the author’s credentials -- which are extremely impressive IMO, I would say I believe what his statistics show. I’ve also heard him interviewed on the radio. Regardless of that fact, that is why I noted that “I read” the information, rather than stating it as absolute fact. But if you are skeptical, or y’all are in need of more research material up there in Bangorlandia, I’m sure a phone call from you or your boss to him would generate a wealth of information. And I think he’d take your call, especially on this matter… and whom in their right mind wouldn’t want to talk to Stephen King?

    http://larrycorreia.wordpress.com/20...n-gun-control/

  9. #29
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Kansas City
    Posts
    3,847

    Default Re: What if?

    Quote Originally Posted by exzel View Post
    Yes Ally, I believe that is their ultimate goal. If they would claim that as their mission statement they would be tarred and feathered and run out on a rail here. Does anybody honestly think if they would get the legislation they are currently seeking, that they will close up shop? No, they will seek more, and more and more.
    Possibly, but they don't get to just make up legislation and get it passed. We have Congress (who want to be reelected) and a President (who must sign any legislation into law) and a judicial system (who must consider any challenges to any law that is passed). And if there does come a time when the Second Amendment is overturned--because that has been done before--that would require a Herculean effort and a major change in the overall social consciousness of this country. What I mean by that is this: if it's going to happen, it will happen when society as a whole deems it prudent. Each proposed change to the law should be examined on its own merit, because everything, literally everything, can be a "slippery slope."

    And I believe the name change to the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence was more or less a ploy to sound less extreme and get more donations from the unsuspecting. And apparently it has worked.
    Duhn-duhn-DUHN.

    Or ... alternatively, they might be precisely what they say they are. Perhaps the name change was a sign that they wanted to be less extreme, or a focus on what is really important: preventing gun violence, regardless of the length of the firestick involved. (Quote from the website: "As the largest national, non-partisan, grassroots organization leading the fight to prevent gun violence, the Brady Campaign, the Million Mom March and the Brady Center are dedicated to creating an America free from gun violence, where all Americans are safe at home, at school, at work, and in their communities. The Brady Campaign, the Million Mom March and the Brady Center believe that a safer America can be achieved without banning all guns.") I mean, I believe the NRA is an extreme organization, but I also believe they are basically honest about their intent (although not so honest, perhaps, about other issues).

    I have to confess that it boggles my mind when one side, ANY side, without real evidence, uses as part of their rationale: "We don't believe your position is X. We believe your position is Y. And here is why Y is wrong." It's not possible to fight against that nor to come to any agreement. There is absolutely NO stand that the Brady Campaign could take that would make any difference whatsoever in the minds of its opponents, because you're not evaluating them on what they've done, their stated goals, or current legislation they're trying to champion. You're basically saying, without any compelling evidence that I can see, that they're lying about who they are. This implies that there are secret meetings taking place, there there is a whole set of documentation somewhere detailing the inner works of the hidden organization, that your side is honest and that the other side is a pack of lying liars just waiting to pounce on your freedoms.

  10. #30
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    1,083

    Default Re: What if?

    Quote Originally Posted by Todash View Post
    This implies that there are secret meetings taking place, there there is a whole set of documentation somewhere detailing the inner works of the hidden organization, that your side is honest and that the other side is a pack of lying liars just waiting to pounce on your freedoms.
    .

    You don’t perchance mean something like some meeting, where the President of the United States suddenly shows up, and afterward publicly claming that the POTUS is committed to stealth gun control?

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •