Teachers and Firearms


Bini
 Share

Recommended Posts

You know, it's that kind of attitude that makes me glad teachers are generally unarmed.

What attitude are you talking about? The attitude that if we entrust our children's emotional and physical well-being to teachers, we should be willing to arm those teachers who are willing to be armed? I don't see the logical flaw in this argument.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 180
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I had a rather interesting dream last night on this general subject. Let me summarize the dream. My husband and I were at a baseball kind of game with a bunch of young boys. A man came in the park with a rifle. He was waving it around and firing off shots. No one was hit that I knew of. He walked on up on a loop road continuing to wave his rifle around and firing it randomly. Several park workers followed him and tried to warn people off. He continued down the loop and was coming back around.

A small group of officials said that I needed to go out of the park and get someone to come in and take the man out. A military base was ajoining the park so I went to find a soldier to help. Found two but they wouldnt do it but said I was welcome to the rifle. I told them I was not trained in that but ended up taking the rifle with me. As I headed back I ran into one of my kids who was at that base in the army. Several of their kids were in the park. This daughter asked what the man had told me so she said she would do it. She took the rifle, entered the turnstile to the park and raised the rifle and shot the man dead. I was shocked that she had not done any warning but then realized that others had done that and it hadnt worked.

Someone asked how she felt and she asked if they had wanted him taken out and they said yes. She said then not she didnt feel bad about it.

Then more officials showed up and she had to sign papers and then the newsmedia showed up and they wanted interviews. At that point I was getting very worried that she was going to be hounded by the media and lawyers. Then the dream ended.

I saw no resolution in the dream. All the questions of what should happen to protect our children are still there. We can just take action or we can try to solve it in other ways. The man in the dream had not shot anyone. He was very surprised to be shot. I am not sure he ever intended to kill anyone. It is maybe right to take him out before he did but was he ever going to? If we shot people we think are going to possibly shot kids is that the proper course? I just dont know. My daughter had no doubt, publicly, but would she wonder later? Would it haunt her forever?

Anyway I dont know if the dream means anything, like my mind trying to find resolution, but it seemed to me that the question was weighing on me and was trying to come up with solutions..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited) · Hidden
Hidden

Thank you Anne, for demonstrating so clearly what this argument is about:

Reality versus fantasy.

Your entire argument in this thread has been predicated on what-if's, idyll day-dreams, and raw unsubstantiated fantasy- and your final statement simply exposes that penultimate absurdity.

The idea that gun control legislation would have stopped the Sandy Hook Atrocity is fantasy. The weapons used were illegally obtained, illegally carried, and illegally used. New laws will not stop law-breakers.

Chicago has had some of the most restrictive gun legislation in the country for decades, but their rate of violent crime- including gun crime- is one of the highest in the country.

The idea that gun-free zones will save lives is a fantasy. From Columbine to Sandy Hook to UNC to Fort Hood, the victims were universally denied the right to defend themselves because they obeyed the law, and their murderer did not.

The idea that gun confiscation will prevent deaths is fantasy. There are millions of firearms in this country. If the fascists in our midst miraculously succeeded in passing legislation requiring confiscation, they'd have to do door-to-door, closet-to-cabinet searches to find them. They have neither the manpower nor the time to accomplish such things- and the American people would never tolerate jackboots doing door-to-door searches.

The idea that guns will be outlawed and/or erased from America is fantasy. The Constitution specifically forbids it and the American people would never tolerate it.

Even if our government suddenly became as restrictive and intrusive as that of North Korea- you'll never get them all.

According to one commentator, there are eighty-eight guns in this country for every one hundred people.

We can't even deport twelve million foreign invaders who are illegally in this country. How then shall we confiscate several million guns over their owners objections?

Criminals, by definition, ignore and violate the law.

Would-be gun confiscators do exactly the same thing to common sense and logic.

They much prefer embracing a kum-bah-ya fantasy world in which inanimate objects-

rather than people- are morally and culpably responsible for their actions.

The facts- and common sense- are against you on this matter.

And the American people know it.

When all you've got left to argue is an alleged dream (and no particular prophetic calling to back it up), you've got nothing left to argue.

Dreams offer nothing tangible, nothing factual, and nothing rationale.

Which is pretty much par for the gun-grabbers course.

One final thought:

Liberals Panic As They Lose the Gun Narrative - Kurt Schlichter - Page 1

Edited by selek
Link to comment
Hidden

Selek, you are very good at making up arguments I am supposedly making. If you actually read anything I have written, and I claim NO prophesy at all at anytime, implied or otherwise, you would know that I have NO answer to the problem. As in my dream, which is not fantasy or supposed, its just a dream, I do not know what the answer is. I doubt there is an answer. Kindly stop using my posts to base arguments against things I have not said.

I have said its a complicated issue. If more guns were in schools I would not send my kids there because I dont trust anyone around my family with weapons. I do not like the mentally ill to have guns. I do not think guns are toys. Shooting is not a sport. Its serious. Ok now argue from those viewpoints. I will stand by them.

Link to comment
Posted (edited) · Hidden
Hidden

Selek, you are very good at making up arguments I am supposedly making. If you actually read anything I have written, and I claim NO prophesy at all at anytime, implied or otherwise, you would know that I have NO answer to the problem.

Very noble, very high-minded of you, except for one little crack in the facade: you have indicated time and time again that in your mind, guns are the problem.

Not the fractured mental health system.

Not the undeniable existence of evil and evil-designing men in our world.

Not the moral decay of our society (in favor of embracing a radical libertinism).

Guns.

And you are, as I pointed out above, missing the point.

As in my dream, which is not fantasy or supposed, its just a dream, I do not know what the answer is. I doubt there is an answer. Kindly stop using my posts to base arguments against things I have not said.

Forgive me for taking you at your word. I'll remember to avoid such things in future.

I have said its a complicated issue. If more guns were in schools I would not send my kids there because I dont trust anyone around my family with weapons.

Let's parse that out just a bit.

It's a conditional statement: IF there were more guns in school.

You're not worried about pedophiles, mad-bombers, jihadists, kidnappers, or arsonists. You're worried about the presence of guns.

Ergo, in your mind, guns are the problem.

I do not like the mentally ill to have guns. I do not think guns are toys. Shooting is not a sport.

Two out of three of those statements are accurate- but only because they are matters of opinion.

In point of fact, I agree with you.

The mentally ill should not have guns, and guns are not toys.

But that's not the problem.

Guns did not leap up at their own behest and strike down innocent lives.

Evil and evil-designing men did.

Its serious. Ok now argue from those viewpoints. I will stand by them.

I have.

Your arguments are predicated on the wholly irrational foundation that guns are the problem.

You are correct in your claim that there is no solution because you monomaniacally refuse to attack the real problem.

The real problem is not "guns". Guns are an easy-fix, a placebo that the Left offers up to avoid confronting the real problem.

And until you start addressing the real problem, your sugar-water panaceas will prove increasingly useless.

Edited by selek
Link to comment
Hidden

I have NEVER said guns are THE problem. I have repeatedly said its complicated.

If anything I have repeatedly said that we need to address how to stop the shootings by addressing the problem of the mentally ill.

Selek, I am not going to go through your post sentence by sentence but do yourself a favor and find someone else to use to make your points because I am going to call you on it every single post you do.

I am wondering if you were offended by me saying parent gun fanatics are involved in most every case I know of. If so then just remember there are fanatics at both end and they are both nuts. If you are not a fanatic then I am not talking about you. If you are then you have to be the one to label yourself as such. I am not doing it.

Link to comment
Hidden

I have NEVER said guns are THE problem. I have repeatedly said its complicated.

I would believe the "it's complicated" mea culpa except for the fact that (as I have pointed out above) the vast majority of your statements focus on guns and upon restricting them.

If anything I have repeatedly said that we need to address how to stop the shootings by addressing the problem of the mentally ill.

There are a number of problems with this premise: most notably, the idea that everyone who engages in gun violence is mentally ill.

Nidal Hasan was not.

Christopher Littlejohn was not.

John Allen Muhammad and Lee Boyd Malvo were not.

Dylan Kliebold and Eric Harris were not.

Yes- James Holmes and the Sandy Hook killer were both psychologically disturbed (the former actually sought help before he killed)- but correlation does not equal causation- especially in the face of so much evidence to the contrary.

Selek, I am not going to go through your post sentence by sentence but do yourself a favor and find someone else to use to make your points because I am going to call you on it every single post you do.

I look forward to the challenge. In point of fact, however, you have yet to offer a single substantive fact to contradict my arguments.

Thus far, you have limited yourself to opinions and the deep, moving, profoundly insightful implications of your nocturnal musings.

I look forward to you stepping up your game.

I am wondering if you were offended by me saying parent gun fanatics are involved in most every case I know of.

Now, why on Earth would I be offended by a special pleading in which you arbitrarily demonize an entire group of people simply for the crime of not buying into your prejudices?

In point of fact, there is zero evidence to indicate that any of the families mentioned above were in fact "gun fanatics".

"Gun owners", yes. "Fanatics"? No. Had I seen it (and I hadn't), I would have chalked it up to the usual Left-liberal tendency to name-call in lieu of offering a rationale argument.

If so then just remember there are fanatics at both end and they are both nuts.

While this sounds good on it's face, it is yet another is a false dichotomy.

Your first was to lump people into two groups: those who do not commit gun crimes and the mentally ill. That categorization does not withstand careful (or even cursory) scrutiny.

Your second is to lump people into two groups: those who agree with you and the mentally ill (i.e, "nuts"). That categorization, too, does not withstand carefuly scrutiny, and is in fact a distraction, at best.

If you are not a fanatic then I am not talking about you.

The only problem with this oh-so-noble sentiment was that it was brought up specifically to discredit people who disagree with you (at either end of the spectrum).

If you are then you have to be the one to label yourself as such. I am not doing it.

I believe this qualifies as a "damned-if-you-do, damned-if-you-don't".

If I fail to explicitly reject the name-calling by agreeing with your presumptions and prejudices, I am self-labelling as a "fanatic". If, on the other hand, I concede the ground, then I am likewise conceding the argument.

On reflection, I decline to play by those cynical rules, and I reject your false dichotomies.

Contrary to your presumption, the world cannot be divided into two neat little columns with no messy remainders left over. That I disagree with you does not render my opinion, my points, or my reasoning invalid.

That I refuse to be bullied into surrendering my Constitutional rights in the name of solidarity and some tenuous and unproven "public good" does not make me a fanatic.

In point of fact, NONE of the "proposed solutions" deals with the actual problem- but dealing with the actual problem was never the intent of the gun grabbers to begin with.

Link to comment
Hidden

Well you are welcome to prat on but I am declining as of now to respond to any of your false statements. Bye and enjoy your obsessions.

Ann I want to thank you for a remarkably well-reasoned, cogent, and respectful response.

Aside from the fact that in a single post you managed to impune both my integrity and my sanity (that's what happens when you accuse people of spreading falsehoods and of being obsessed), you have yet to actually demonstrate that any of my statements are false.

That you disagree with them does not make them "incorrect".

That you find them inconvenient does not render them "false".

That I can discuss these issues based on fact and reason rather than emotion does not make me "obsessed".

But I can understand that in todays political environment name-calling may serve in the absence of facts or logic.

Link to comment

Just wanted to remind everyone of site rules #3 and #4:

3. Personal attacks, name calling, flaming, and judgments against other members will not be tolerated.

4. No bickering and nit-picking toward others. Realize that sometimes it is very difficult to be able to express how one feels through written words. Please be courteous and ask for a further explanation, rather then trying to attack and find holes in someone else's post.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When the demand exists for something, a market will form to supply it. Hence drug cartels, speakeasies and moonshine, and filesharing sites online.

Exactly. Look at crystal meth as a perfect example; it's pretty much always illegal. AFAIK, unless you're LE handling it as evidence, or maybe some sort of researcher with all sorts of supervision and documentation, there's just no way to legally possess it, yet it's relatively easily available to anyone with cash. The ingredients are controlled, but that doesn't stop anyone determined to get it, or to make quick cash by selling it.

A perfectly functional firearm can be made by any even moderately competent machinist in a fairly short time, with relatively common tools and raw materials that are available to anyone. For that matter, the moderately competent machinist could even make most of the tools, given barely iron-age technology to start from. Banning guns won't make them go away, it will just ensure that only criminals will have them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I personally feel teachers wouldn't need to go through any military type training. Would it be profitable for them to be instructed in the same manner, or a relatively close manner, as police officers -- I can see this as beneficial.

Not necessarily; police need to seek out the problem, while the teacher's primary responsibility should be to simply get the students in their classroom into the most defensible location and take up a defensive position to prevent anyone coming in the door. That's not the sort of thing that needs weeks of move-and-shoot or room clearing training. Weapon handling and safety, yes, first aid, absolutely, but not 99% of what police or military train in.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is the problem with American gun laws:

1.) Guns are legal.

2.) A lot of people have no healthy respect for guns.

It's like sex, in a way. Sex is awesome and beneficial when used properly. Unfortunately, there are 2 things going on with sex in America - first, there are those people who grow up thinking sex is dirty and bad. Second, there are those people who do not have respect for sex, so there's this shade of a sex-crazed society.

Guns are awesome and beneficial when used properly. Unfortunately, there are 2 things going on with guns in America - first there are those people who grow up thinking guns is the root of all evil. Second, there are those who do not have respect for guns, so they would go out carrying one not knowing how to use it/treat it showing off to their friends and ending up accidentally blowing somebody up.

I was in Texas for a short bit. There's one thing different about the culture in that area of rural Texas. People - including little children - grow up with guns (rifles, mostly) so they are brought up without anybody tainting guns as bad things. And becouse they are around these guns, they get to learn respect for the rifle. And eventually, when they're big enough not to fall over when they shoot the thing, they get to learn how to use the firearm. These children are not going to invite their friends over to their houses and show off their rifles and accidentally hit someone with it.

So... when talking gun laws, I don't think banning guns should be the issue on the table. This would be as terrible as the Prohibition laws. Trying to ban alcohol only increased the number of crimes from bootleggers. I think the issue on the table should be how to reconcile gun ownership with respect for firearms.

I grew up under Martial Law. And I tell you... the UK and Australia are great places to live. But, they're living under the assumption that their military will always be working for their best interests - or basically, that they are willing to accept everything their representatives in government is going to do for them. Growing up under Martial Law is not fun - especially with the suspension of the writ of habeas corpus - that is, guilty until proven innocent. Marcos, of course, banned guns before he declared Martial Law and then illegally armed the Muslims in the south and staged a terrorist massacre in a government convention so he can declare Martial Law. Nice.

So, I'm biased when it comes to gun laws because everytime I hear ban on assault weapons (yeah, try defining assault weapons), what pops in my mind is the helplessness of the people when facing the assault weapons carried by Marcos' goons.

And yes, I understand what Mahone was saying about Americans and fear. I feel that too. What he's basically saying is that - Americans enact laws out of fear of something. For example - Americans are willing to shed their dignity to get their crotch swiped because they are afraid of the 0.1% chance that the airplane is going to get blown up. Americans make laws banning peanuts from certain places because they're afraid of the 0.1% chance that somebody with peanut allergies is going to die a horrible death.

Okay, I'm just making the 0.1% up - but it's a slim chance nonetheless.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is the problem with American gun laws:

1.) Guns are legal.

2.) A lot of people have no healthy respect for guns.

It's like sex, in a way. Sex is awesome and beneficial when used properly. Unfortunately, there are 2 things going on with sex in America - first, there are those people who grow up thinking sex is dirty and bad. Second, there are those people who do not have respect for sex, so there's this shade of a sex-crazed society.

Guns are awesome and beneficial when used properly. Unfortunately, there are 2 things going on with guns in America - first there are those people who grow up thinking guns is the root of all evil. Second, there are those who do not have respect for guns, so they would go out carrying one not knowing how to use it/treat it showing off to their friends and ending up accidentally blowing somebody up.

I was in Texas for a short bit. There's one thing different about the culture in that area of rural Texas. People - including little children - grow up with guns (rifles, mostly) so they are brought up without anybody tainting guns as bad things. And becouse they are around these guns, they get to learn respect for the rifle. And eventually, when they're big enough not to fall over when they shoot the thing, they get to learn how to use the firearm. These children are not going to invite their friends over to their houses and show off their rifles and accidentally hit someone with it.

So... when talking gun laws, I don't think banning guns should be the issue on the table. This would be as terrible as the Prohibition laws. Trying to ban alcohol only increased the number of crimes from bootleggers. I think the issue on the table should be how to reconcile gun ownership with respect for firearms.

I grew up under Martial Law. And I tell you... the UK and Australia are great places to live. But, they're living under the assumption that their military will always be working for their best interests - or basically, that they are willing to accept everything their representatives in government is going to do for them. Growing up under Martial Law is not fun - especially with the suspension of the writ of habeas corpus - that is, guilty until proven innocent. Marcos, of course, banned guns before he declared Martial Law and then illegally armed the Muslims in the south and staged a terrorist massacre in a government convention so he can declare Martial Law. Nice.

So, I'm biased when it comes to gun laws because everytime I hear ban on assault weapons (yeah, try defining assault weapons), what pops in my mind is the helplessness of the people when facing the assault weapons carried by Marcos' goons.

And yes, I understand what Mahone was saying about Americans and fear. I feel that too. What he's basically saying is that - Americans enact laws out of fear of something. For example - Americans are willing to shed their dignity to get their crotch swiped because they are afraid of the 0.1% chance that the airplane is going to get blown up. Americans make laws banning peanuts from certain places because they're afraid of the 0.1% chance that somebody with peanut allergies is going to die a horrible death.

Okay, I'm just making the 0.1% up - but it's a slim chance nonetheless.

Interesting thoughts but did you know that more children were killed last year from taking their first drag on a cigarette and going into anaphylactic shock than were gunned down? If parents smoke, children are more likely to “try” and encourage their friends to “try” cigarettes and end in anaphylactic shock deaths than “try” out guns ending in death.

I personally believe that children are more inclined to be used a political pawns than I trust that anyone in politics actually cares for their health and safety.

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is the problem with American gun laws:

1.) Guns are legal.

2.) A lot of people have no healthy respect for guns.

It's like sex, in a way. Sex is awesome and beneficial when used properly. Unfortunately, there are 2 things going on with sex in America - first, there are those people who grow up thinking sex is dirty and bad. Second, there are those people who do not have respect for sex, so there's this shade of a sex-crazed society.

Guns are awesome and beneficial when used properly. Unfortunately, there are 2 things going on with guns in America - first there are those people who grow up thinking guns is the root of all evil. Second, there are those who do not have respect for guns, so they would go out carrying one not knowing how to use it/treat it showing off to their friends and ending up accidentally blowing somebody up.

I was in Texas for a short bit. There's one thing different about the culture in that area of rural Texas. People - including little children - grow up with guns (rifles, mostly) so they are brought up without anybody tainting guns as bad things. And becouse they are around these guns, they get to learn respect for the rifle. And eventually, when they're big enough not to fall over when they shoot the thing, they get to learn how to use the firearm. These children are not going to invite their friends over to their houses and show off their rifles and accidentally hit someone with it.

So... when talking gun laws, I don't think banning guns should be the issue on the table. This would be as terrible as the Prohibition laws. Trying to ban alcohol only increased the number of crimes from bootleggers. I think the issue on the table should be how to reconcile gun ownership with respect for firearms.

I grew up under Martial Law. And I tell you... the UK and Australia are great places to live. But, they're living under the assumption that their military will always be working for their best interests - or basically, that they are willing to accept everything their representatives in government is going to do for them. Growing up under Martial Law is not fun - especially with the suspension of the writ of habeas corpus - that is, guilty until proven innocent. Marcos, of course, banned guns before he declared Martial Law and then illegally armed the Muslims in the south and staged a terrorist massacre in a government convention so he can declare Martial Law. Nice.

So, I'm biased when it comes to gun laws because everytime I hear ban on assault weapons (yeah, try defining assault weapons), what pops in my mind is the helplessness of the people when facing the assault weapons carried by Marcos' goons.

And yes, I understand what Mahone was saying about Americans and fear. I feel that too. What he's basically saying is that - Americans enact laws out of fear of something. For example - Americans are willing to shed their dignity to get their crotch swiped because they are afraid of the 0.1% chance that the airplane is going to get blown up. Americans make laws banning peanuts from certain places because they're afraid of the 0.1% chance that somebody with peanut allergies is going to die a horrible death.

Okay, I'm just making the 0.1% up - but it's a slim chance nonetheless.

Anatess, I pretty much totally agree with you on this. The question is what do we do? Idaho is like Texas in that we are used to guns. Yes the owners do tend to brag about them but we have grown up with them. My brother took his to shop at school and did a rifling pattern on the stock as his project with no complaints at all. He was given a gun at age 9. No big deal. It is people who do not understand them or use them as some kind of symbol of whatever they believe that scare me. Its impossible to know who would be sensible and who is just a gun nut. How do we decide who we can trust and who we cant? Even here in the sticks there are people who are way out of line. When I was a kid a guy went up to the dam and started target shooting a anyone who drove by. Another guy, drunk, decided to let us know he was on the way into the mine by shooting toward the camp so we could hear him I guess. Even here we have the crazies. So how do we know? We dont.

I think and yes its my opinion, that we are not going to come up with a workable solution. The solution is common sense and well we know that is not always common. It is defeatest, I know, but I am afraid its true.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That is what we do in Israel. Far better solution than arming teachers. Half of the point is to deny entrance to the shooter. You can't expect the teachers to be patrolling the facilities when they have lessons.

That would be great if the ACLU would not pitch a fit every time we ask for I.D.'s. :D
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What if we had a system of a strong security lockout? Sandy Hook had one but was not proof against a firearm. If it was bullet proof and the school doors locked up and bullet proof inside as well as outside when any were breached? There would have to be a centrally located open room that could be locked up manually for those in the hallways.

Ok it sounds expensive but it is 'proactively passive' in that no one would be actually harmed from the system. I would think it would be less expensive than having the school manned by security or police. Would it help?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What if we had a system of a strong security lockout? Sandy Hook had one but was not proof against a firearm. If it was bullet proof and the school doors locked up and bullet proof inside as well as outside when any were breached? There would have to be a centrally located open room that could be locked up manually for those in the hallways.

"Bullet proof" is a myth. Even the fairly serious stuff doesn't consistently stop rifle rounds, and certainly isn't designed to stop several fired at a single spot.

And could you please explain to me what makes you think a guy who doesn't mind including suicide in his plan for the day would be unwilling to scuff up his car to get into the place he wants to be?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey I dont know if it would be a cure all but it might be worthwhile to think about. :) How about if the doors were inaccessible by cars? So about bullet proof. hmmm Well I bet we could come up with a way. Oh and if it being breached set off alarms at the police station would be good. Put enough between the kids and the shooter to give police time to get there cant hurt.

Just trying to think of alternate ideas. Got any good ones? Or even bad ones?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting thoughts but did you know that more children were killed last year from taking their first drag on a cigarette and going into anaphylactic shock than were gunned down? If parents smoke, children are more likely to “try” and encourage their friends to “try” cigarettes and end in anaphylactic shock deaths than “try” out guns ending in death.

I personally believe that children are more inclined to be used a political pawns than I trust that anyone in politics actually cares for their health and safety.

The Traveler

Anatess, I pretty much totally agree with you on this. The question is what do we do? Idaho is like Texas in that we are used to guns. Yes the owners do tend to brag about them but we have grown up with them. My brother took his to shop at school and did a rifling pattern on the stock as his project with no complaints at all. He was given a gun at age 9. No big deal. It is people who do not understand them or use them as some kind of symbol of whatever they believe that scare me. Its impossible to know who would be sensible and who is just a gun nut. How do we decide who we can trust and who we cant? Even here in the sticks there are people who are way out of line. When I was a kid a guy went up to the dam and started target shooting a anyone who drove by. Another guy, drunk, decided to let us know he was on the way into the mine by shooting toward the camp so we could hear him I guess. Even here we have the crazies. So how do we know? We dont.

I think and yes its my opinion, that we are not going to come up with a workable solution. The solution is common sense and well we know that is not always common. It is defeatest, I know, but I am afraid its true.

What if we had a system of a strong security lockout? Sandy Hook had one but was not proof against a firearm. If it was bullet proof and the school doors locked up and bullet proof inside as well as outside when any were breached? There would have to be a centrally located open room that could be locked up manually for those in the hallways.

Ok it sounds expensive but it is 'proactively passive' in that no one would be actually harmed from the system. I would think it would be less expensive than having the school manned by security or police. Would it help?

When talking about Columbine, Sandy Hook, Aurora... you are not talking about a "gun problem" or a "security problem". You are talking about a social problem. So, what is the solution to Columbine, Sandy Hook, Aurora? Certainly not a "stricter gun law" or a "security guards" or those types of stuff. Because, the only thing that is going to accomplish is make us all feel that we are doing something - kinda like spraying air freshener in a room where moldy trash is sitting in the corner. It only makes you smell good - it doesn't kill the mold.

The solution to those problems is a change in culture. Where people grow up with the culture of respect for life. Respect for other lives as well as our own lives. When you have a culture where people are just plain nasty to each other just because they don't agree with each other on media-propagated "issue of the day" - that is an indicator of how much respect every person has for others. When you have a culture where "I deserve..." has become a common personal motto with complete disregard on how "what they deserve" impacts others or society as a whole - that's an indicator of what these people are willing to go, to get what they deserve. When you have a culture where the potential for life has no value when put in the balance against the convenience of women - that's an indicator of what these people are willing to do for their own convenience. When you have a culture where "for the sake of the children" is considered a ridiculous concept in the balance of "what one deserves in a marriage" - you have an indicator of how these people value their own lives against those of their own children. When you have a society growing up where social interaction is limited to electronic characters - where you just drop friends from your friends list anytime, or blow up their avatars on the game - you have an indicator of how these people are going to respect personal relationships.

And when you put all those factors and magnify it to the level of the mentally imbalanced - what do you get? Columbine. Sandy Hook. Aurora. Etc. etc. etc.

When that social problem is eliminated/reduced you will find that air fresheners are not necessary after you take out the moldy trash.

Edited by anatess
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It easier to just do the gun thing, Anatess, even if it has little chance of succeeding. My husband says we wont get there till the millennium and he is probably right but we can try. We have to try.

Yes, it is easier. But I, for one, am not willing to take the consequence of an unecessary reactionary law. What we can do is balance the laws between the society (conservative) and the individual (liberal) to promote a culture that is cognizant of the common good with the exercise of individual freedom.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A perfectly functional firearm can be made by any even moderately competent machinist in a fairly short time, with relatively common tools and raw materials that are available to anyone. For that matter, the moderately competent machinist could even make most of the tools, given barely iron-age technology to start from. Banning guns won't make them go away, it will just ensure that only criminals will have them.

In the MythBusters episode where they studied the myth of whether or not a crossbow could be built out of things available in prison, they toured a supermax prison in the area. They were shown a number of confiscated weapons built in the prison, including a fully functional 9mm Machine gun built out of scavenged plumbing parts. Any attempt to ban guns is flat out doomed to failure. In fact it's worse, because if I need to defend myself from someone out of his mind on PCP, my best defense is often a gun, getting access to PCP myself isn't useful.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share