Originally Posted by Dubyagee (Post 3067747)

No.

Better training and a wiser populace. Not disarming everyone and making the entire country a fish in a barrel game. Gun free zones are a complete joke.

Originally Posted by elchivito (Post 3067473)

The second amendment to the Constitution does not address waiting periods, registration or "convicted felons and other identified individuals."
Logically, if you think waiting periods are "unconstitutional", then you'd also have to conclude that taking away the gun rights of a convicted felon is too.

Originally Posted by MagnumPI (Post 3067757)

Everyone wants to relegate to the state responsibility for safety and societal balance, then give them the tools they need to do the job as close to absolutely as possible. I got jumped on for proposing people keep their own kids safe(ironically by someone who views the human race as a disease), so to hell with it. Go ahead and give your kids mind altering pharmaceuticals, with violent side effects, particularly the withdrawals, for a couple decades. But send them to where at least they'll be under constant surveillance. Everything is heading that direction anyway. Skip a few steps.
I mean, you can't put a price on the life of a child, so if it saves even one kid, it would be worth it. Just someone stick to a principle for God's sake. Anyone, please. This fence sitting is killing me.

Originally Posted by Dubyagee (Post 3067747)

No.

Better training and a wiser populace. Not disarming everyone and making the entire country a fish in a barrel game. Gun free zones are a complete joke.

Originally Posted by Jorn (Post 3067763)

And who pays for that? When old Ronnie had to save some money in the 80's he closed all the mental hospitals and kicked them on the street. And here we are.

Originally Posted by raymr (Post 3067766)

They are now on track for the lowest murder rate since 1963. A gun ban did not help DC. But instead it helped it turn into an open air drug market where just the thugs were armed.

Originally Posted by MBlovr (Post 3067637)

Could be though I think studies tend to conclude that whacking kids tends to increase their propensity toward violence.

Originally Posted by HuskyMan (Post 3067517)

If we strip away pure emotion and get down to analytical logic the deal comes down to this: We cannot control A (nut jobs), however, we can control B (ourselves). If every teacher was armed and well trained in the use of deadly force, they would be in a position to stop the carnage at the point of invasion. Bolt bullet proof desks to the floors of each class room. Install a digital security lock on a desk drawer which houses a high capacity hand gun. Require that teachers attend firearms training monthly. Post the teacher's targets/shooting scores in the front entry of the school.

Why all this? Because it is true, a pussy will seek out a venue where they know no defense will be presented, i.e. a "gun free" zone. These pussies know that in a school, they will face very little opposition. Obviously, we are at war and there is an enemy that MUST be dealt with. Banning guns, limiting the amount of ammunition etc etc. are all band aids.

If these whacko psychotic nut jobs are looking to go out in a blaze of glory, give them what they want, only don't allow them take out innocents in the process.

Originally Posted by t walgamuth (Post 3067672)

I would not be against training and arming some teachers who have aptitude for it and possbily already are experienced with guns.

But arming all of them is not a viable idea.

Originally Posted by pj67coll (Post 3067785)

This is probably the best overall solution I think. You don't need every member of the staff to be armed. Just a sufficiently large number that you have a "critical defensive mass". In a school of maybe 30 staff members you probably wouldn't need more than about three or four.

It might vary be location around the country but around here it wouldn't be hard to find that percentage able to do so and quite possibly willing as well.

I don't think it's necessary to carry "high capacity" glock type weapons either. A simple six shooter would probably suffice. Simple and a lot safer than semi-autos.

- Peter.

Originally Posted by Mike Murrell (Post 3067774)

A point the gun-control-crowd can't come to grips with. They apparently believe the thugs will turns in their guns.

Originally Posted by Jorn (Post 3067799)

criminals that carry guns to do their "job" don't bother with civilians that often, they use it against their rival thugs.

Originally Posted by Jorn (Post 3067799)

Thugs kill thugs, criminals that carry guns to do their "job" don't bother with civilians, they use it against their rival thugs. Most gun victims knew there assailant; same with rape and child abuse victims. A point the gun swaggers don't get.

Originally Posted by cmac2012 (Post 3067781)

The recent Oregon mall shooting was the first I can recall where a C&C individual actually was in the right place at the right time. Most people don't want to C&C. I don't. That may change but I sorta doubt it.

Originally Posted by Brian Carlton (Post 3067800)

...........would you like to explain that to the 20 sets of parents?
I wouldn't.:rolleyes:

Originally Posted by Dubyagee (Post 3067801)

Ridiculous. Some sort of thug code in effect. Murderers murder and thugs thug. No civilian/thug line. Ban guns and thugs will still have them and use them on the now unarmed civilians. Brilliant.