The Gun Thread

[diametricalbenz]

Originally Posted by HuskyMan

well.....let's just think this out a bit.....what if a police officer had been present in the classroom at Virginia Tech that day? any chance that he or she may have been able to take out Cho?

And who would pay for extra police presence? Taxpayers. And I doubt you'd want to PAY HIGHER TAXES.

[DieselAddict]

Originally Posted by diametricalbenz

And who would pay for extra police presence? Taxpayers. And I doubt you'd want to PAY HIGHER TAXES.

I think a better idea is more effective gun control, you know things like not letting mentally ill people legally purchase guns.

[pj67coll]

Originally Posted by DieselAddict

I can tell you haven't seen the show, but at least think about it. What if the door to the classroom is in the back of the class?

What if it is?

Even if it's in the front, a lot of people may be looking down taking notes and not see the shooter before it's too late.

Well I guess they get shot then dont they.

Or what if the shooter is already in the class and starts shooting from his seat? Then everyone tries to pull out their guns and start shooting at anyone who's shooting too.

You can imagine any ludicrous situation you want. That doesn't change the fact that armed people can defend themselves when unarmed people cannot. When you have a whackjob spraying gunfire around lots of people are likely to be killed. If I were in such a situation I would far rather be able to defend myself than not. The idea that a bunch of liberals figure their world view is more important than my safety if BS in my opinion and no amount of biased 'journalism" is going to change that.

It appears you didn't think this through and you're just blinded by NRA propaganda.

I don't need to "think it thru". The right to self defence is inherent and I dont need anybody's propaganda to tell me that.

- Peter.

[HuskyMan]

Originally Posted by cmbdiesel

Now we want guns in the drawers and cops in the classrooms too? Who's picking up the tab for all this? Maybe we can pay for it with tax cuts to the uber-wealthy?

a teacher who receives the same firearms training as a police officer could be just as competent to handle an emergency situation. why do the schools place fire extinguishers in the school buildings? there's a fire department down the street, right? they place fire extinguishers in the buildings because EARLY RESPONSE and ACTION is necessary to help put a fire out. Cho was on fire but there were no fire extinguishers available.

[/QUOTE]
Although some policemen may benefit from more time in the classroom, I don't think armed guards in every room is the answer.
How about if the restrictions put in place by the federal government, regarding the sale of weapons, are enforced? Then, maybe Cho, and all those he killed, might have been able to chime in on the discussion.[/QUOTE]

the federal gun laws (and in case you haven't read them there are PLENTY of 'em on the books) were in FULL force and effect the day Cho went to purchase his guns. he slipped through the cracks, because the system isn't perfect and it never will be.

this thread reminds me of Rick Rescorla who worked for Morgan Stanley Dean Witter at the World Trade Centers. when Rick Rescorla took his job as head of security for Morgan Stanley at the World Trade Center, he looked at the towers as military targets of opportunity. he petitioned his employer to train the employees for emergency evacuation. fortunately, Morgan Stanley took Rick's suggestions seriously. His preplanning and preparing the employees for disaster is credited with saving the lives of over 2,500 Morgan Stanley Dean Witter employees on 9/11. Rick was a visionary who could see things that others could not and would not see.

http://www.mudvillegazette.com/archives/000307.html

this country needs a lot more Rick Rescorlas. we need visionaries who can see things the rest of the morons can't or won't see. we need for them to help us help ourselves out of the stupidity we have created.

anyone who has read any American history knows that guns played a very important role in the formation of the United States of America. our foreign enemies would love it if we disarmed ourselves. makes for an easy takeover and soon they hoist their flag while burning ours.

[LUVMBDiesels]

Originally Posted by DieselAddict

I can tell you haven't seen the show, but at least think about it. What if the door to the classroom is in the back of the class? Even if it's in the front, a lot of people may be looking down taking notes and not see the shooter before it's too late. Or what if the shooter is already in the class and starts shooting from his seat? Then everyone tries to pull out their guns and start shooting at anyone who's shooting too. There's also the issue of "tunnel vision" which happens subconsciously in a stress situation like this and it would most likely contribute to more collateral damage. It appears you didn't think this through and you're just blinded by NRA propaganda.

Call me stupid, but I don't see the point of this argument. If a gunman came into a classroom and started firing and killed say two or three people before he gets shot isn't it a good thing that he was stopped before he could kill everyone? Even if there is some collateral damage and other people get hit, isn't saving at least SOME of the people in the class worth it? It is better than letting a gunman fire until he is empty, reload and keep killing. In Virginia Tech 33 people got killed That's right THIRTY THREE! If there had been an armed response and say 20 of those 33 had been saved wouldn't that have been a great thing? In NY 17 people were killed. If even two of these people had been saved it would have been great. I am not saying that guns in the classroom is a great idea, or that it would save everybody, but if even one person was saved in these tragedies, it would have justified having the guns there...

[pj67coll]

Originally Posted by LUVMBDiesels

isn't it a good thing that he was stopped before he could kill everyone?

you would think

Even if there is some collateral damage and other people get hit, isn't saving at least SOME of the people in the class worth it? It is better than letting a gunman fire until he is empty, reload and keep killing.

Apparently not.

In Virginia Tech 33 people got killed That's right THIRTY THREE! If there had been an armed response and say 20 of those 33 had been saved wouldn't that have been a great thing?

Once again you would think... But you're missing the point. It's not about stopping whackjobs from massacering the innocent. It's about stuffing your anti gun shtick down the throats of everybody else, and damm the consequences.

- Peter.

[diametricalbenz]

Originally Posted by DieselAddict

I think a better idea is more effective gun control, you know things like not letting mentally ill people legally purchase guns.

I completely agree with the psych test idea. Ok it has privacy issues atop the typical form rebuttals but it would be a step in halting people who would have a propensity to violently act out their aggression.

It still wouldn't stop a kid from blowing his frontal lobe off with a Micro-Uzi, screaming and bleeding everywhere....so sad...

[jplinville]

Originally Posted by diametricalbenz

It still wouldn't stop a kid from blowing his frontal lobe off with a Micro-Uzi, screaming and bleeding everywhere....so sad...

Wouldn't this be considered "survival of the fittest"??

[DieselAddict]

Originally Posted by LUVMBDiesels

Call me stupid, but I don't see the point of this argument. If a gunman came into a classroom and started firing and killed say two or three people before he gets shot isn't it a good thing that he was stopped before he could kill everyone? Even if there is some collateral damage and other people get hit, isn't saving at least SOME of the people in the class worth it? It is better than letting a gunman fire until he is empty, reload and keep killing. In Virginia Tech 33 people got killed That's right THIRTY THREE! If there had been an armed response and say 20 of those 33 had been saved wouldn't that have been a great thing? In NY 17 people were killed. If even two of these people had been saved it would have been great. I am not saying that guns in the classroom is a great idea, or that it would save everybody, but if even one person was saved in these tragedies, it would have justified having the guns there...

I'm not necessarily against law-abiding students being armed in class. I just don't think it's such a great idea. There's a big difference between the two. Unlike some people here I can see both the advantages and disadvantages. No doubt in my mind arming students is a double-edged sword. I wouldn't bet one way or another if it would reduce the murder rate on campuses.

[Botnst]

Originally Posted by jplinville

Wouldn't this be considered "survival of the fittest"??

Only if he hasn't yet reproduced.

[LUVMBDiesels]

Originally Posted by DieselAddict

I'm not necessarily against law-abiding students being armed in class. I just don't think it's such a great idea. There's a big difference between the two. Unlike some people here I can see both the advantages and disadvantages. No doubt in my mind arming students is a double-edged sword. I wouldn't bet one way or another if it would reduce the murder rate on campuses.

I also don't think it is the greatest idea in the world. I just don't know what you can do to stop -- not prevent-- the kind of mass murder that has been going on lately. By the time the cops can respond one of these killers can kill dozens of people who cannot fight back. I think that if you let students and faculty carry the weapons they already have albeit with proper training and safety courses and you let it be known that Johnny and Mrs Fisher are armed, you could either force a killer to look elsewhere or put him down before he kills 1/2 the school.

As for psych testing to get a gun permit, I have a few questions.

Who would administer the tests?
What would the definition of mentally ill be that is used to stop somebody from getting a gun? If they test hard enough we would all be labeled 'abnormal' "Do you ever get angry?", "Yes?", "FAIL!"
How often do you have to be tested? Once? Once a year? Once a week? How can a test taken, say, five years ago be considered valid? Do need to be tested every time you go to the range? I mean you could be "normal" and then a week later snap and go hunting people,right? Look at the tragedy in Binghamton. The shooter was 'normal' right up to the first shot...

[Botnst]

Lest we forget ... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M1u0Byq5Qis

[cmbdiesel]

Originally Posted by DieselAddict

I think a better idea is more effective gun control, you know things like not letting mentally ill people legally purchase guns.

Just a side note, Cho, the Virginia Tech student, was NOT legally entitled to purchase firearms. It was the lack of enforcement by the state of Virginia of current federal law that allowed him to purchase the weapons.

Comes right back to my point - close the loopholes, make the existing laws work before we pass more.

Laws without enforcement are pointless.

[cmbdiesel]

Originally Posted by HuskyMan

a teacher who receives the same firearms training as a police officer could be just as competent to handle an emergency situation.


the federal gun laws (and in case you haven't read them there are PLENTY of 'em on the books) were in FULL force and effect the day Cho went to purchase his guns. he slipped through the cracks, because the system isn't perfect and it never will be.

His preplanning......

anyone who has read any American history knows that guns played a very important role in the formation of the United States of America. our foreign enemies would love it if we disarmed ourselves. makes for an easy takeover and soon they hoist their flag while burning ours.

1 - You are assuming that professors would like to receive arms training. I don't think most would sign up, but if we were to offer the training free to those who want it, great. Rock on.

2 - The laws were NOT in full force. Yes, lets apply the laws we have before making new ones. My point from the start.

3 - preplanning, one of my favorite redundancies.

4 - Sure they did, so did horses. What's the point? Who said anything about disarming ourselves? Takeover? You been watching Red Dawn again? We have armed forces to protect our country from hostile countries, and we have armed civilians to protect ourselves from each other.

[OMEGAMAN]

Originally Posted by cmbdiesel

Just a side note, Cho, the Virginia Tech student, was NOT legally entitled to purchase firearms. It was the lack of enforcement by the state of Virginia of current federal law that allowed him to purchase the weapons.

Comes right back to my point - close the loopholes, make the existing laws work before we pass more.

Laws without enforcement are pointless.

I had heard he was entitled to buy guns. What was preventing him from purchasing firearms legally?