........thereby rendering anything you do to curtail handguns to be deemed ineffective..........


Of course you do. The reason is that you want to derail the thread to support your position regarding handguns.

For your information, the thread is regarding the shooting in CT. To further refresh your memory, those folks were killed by one deranged man who did not own a handgun, a rifle, or a shotgun.

Next.

Point.

NFW it will work unless there are repeated drills whereby the teacher is stressed and forced to get to the lockbox under a difficult circumstance.

I agree that it is not an absolute solution.

You aren't going to get the solution whereby the teachers are armed.

The alternative is sitting ducks.................

I was referring to number six.

The circumstances of firearms violence differ significantly between men and women. Compared to a man, a woman is far more likely to be killed by her spouse, an intimate acquaintance, or a family member than murdered by a stranger or an unidentified intruder. A 1976 to 1987 analysis of Federal Bureau of Investigation data revealed that more than twice as many women were shot and killed by their husbands or intimate acquaintances than were murdered by strangers using firearms, knives, or any other means.

The idea that a woman is more than twice as likely to be killed by a family member of intimate with a gun than to be killed by an intruder that the gun is meant to protect against.

However, the numbers are even less when you consider that these statistics are in homes with reported abuse, not all homes with all women.

But, hand gun legislation would definitely have an effect on this group.

also number 8 is interesting-

Having a gun in the home makes it three times more likely that you or someone you care about will be murdered by a family member or intimate partner.

The question is does this increase in risk to your family get outweighed by the perceived increase in safety for your family you think you have?

__________________
This post brought to you by Carl's Jr.

No he didn't, and whats your point?

He died with two handguns and a rifle. Whether or not he owned them is preposterously unrelated to the fact that if legislation existed that prevented his MOTHER from owning them, he wouldn't have had the kind of access to such dangerous tools that he actually did have.

Whoever owned the dam things, they were legally owned, as has been the vast majority of weapons used in mass killings. Who cares if the killers themselves actually owned the weapons or not? The law abiding citizens they stole them from would be affected by legislation, which would impact availability.

__________________
This post brought to you by Carl's Jr.

Like combat soldiers they have to train on a daily base to handel a situation like this, not feasible. If we don't work out a solution to keep guns out of the hands of people that want to do harm, sitting ducks it is. Live with it.

__________________
1979 Black on Black, 300CD (sold), 1990 Black 300SE, Silver 1989 Volvo 780, 1988 300CE (vanished by the hands of a girlfriend), 1992 300CE (Rescue).

Southern Ohio Lunatic Asylum - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The above is the specific facility that I'm referencing...today, it serves the area as 10 Wilmington Place, a high end retirement community. In the late 80's, we used to go inside at night and check out the "rubber rooms" that were in the basement. The place scared the bejesus out of us, which is why used to go there...to scare the hell out of each other.

It closed in 1979...Reagan wasn't POTUS until 1981.

EDIT It actually closed in 1978. In 1979 it was added to the National Register of Historic Places in an attempt to keep developers from tearing it down, which has been the norm in the Dayton area for years.

http://lcweb2.loc.gov/pnp/habshaer/oh/oh0400/oh0402/data/oh0402data.pdf

__________________
1987 560SL
85,000 miles

And what position regarding handguns WOULDNT have an affect on weapon availability for mass shootings?

In what way would you propose that general gun legislation and mass shooting legislation be different? any solution would be one and the same, separating the issues is silly.

__________________
This post brought to you by Carl's Jr.

punching in a security code to open a lock box housing a hand gun is a task anyone who has used an ATM card could do. Even a 20 something teacher can do it. grab the gun, point and fire. keep firing until the perp is not breathing. no fuss, no muss.

Take the thread OT regarding his lack of ownership and ignore everything else.

Bye.

No solution is a panacea.

Do you believe the sitting duck solution is better than the lockboxes? With the lockboxes, you have a chance. Without them, as you said...........sitting ducks.

I can certainly tell you that attempting to regulate handguns to a degree where it is nearly impossible to own one is a complete non-starter here in the US, despite one member's ongoing championing of this solution as the only possibility.

A couple more events like this and anything is possible. Guns in the school is not a solution. Just think about it, even if the teacher can get the nerves together to get to the gun, is he or she so well trained and so calm he/she is only going to shoot at the gun man when he comes around the corner?

What about the swat team; now they have to deal with a killer and teachers with guns: who is the killer, they don't know. It would be a nightmare for them.

School burglaries; happens all the time. Besides computers, now they can get guns, nice!

I don't know about you but when I was in school there were no obstacles, I was always a step a head of the teachers. If there were guns in my school I would have gotten my hands on them, just for fun and out of curiosity.

__________________
1979 Black on Black, 300CD (sold), 1990 Black 300SE, Silver 1989 Volvo 780, 1988 300CE (vanished by the hands of a girlfriend), 1992 300CE (Rescue).

Report: Public Shootings Not On Increase (But Dems Still Want Your Guns)

Fox's thesis is supported by Minnesota Department of Corrections criminologist Grant Duwe, who not only says public shootings aren't increasing -- they are actually on the decline, historically speaking.

Of course, none of this will affect Sen. Feinstein's (D-CA) plan to push an assault weapons ban on "day one of Congress" next year. And that's because facts don't matter when it comes to furthering the gun-grabbing agenda of the Democrat Party.

__________________
Satan creates nothing: he only ruins everything. He does not invent: he tampers. And his followers are no different ~ Archbishop Carlo Maria Vigaṇ

All valid points.

As stated, no solution is a panacea.

However, I'd be pleased to see handguns in the school in a limited capacity rather than do nothing.

And, trying to restrict handguns by legislation is worse than doing nothing because you expend a monumental effort and political capital fighting a losing battle that won't solve the problem even if you're 50% successful.

If you want to have an actual discussion, better work on making sense and not formulating silly rules for the discussion.

Demonstrate to me what's off topic about discussing potential laws and how they would affect availability of weapons for potential nuts, when I'm specifically referencing this guys mother.

Ill be back tomorrow to continue this interesting discussion

__________________
This post brought to you by Carl's Jr.

I bet she manages to bring this to a vote. The real question is what will the House do? I'm inclined to say they go with it............the public is a bit adamant.