[QUOTE=Jrose14;41932368]My school recently made a rule that banned backpacks anywhere but locker bays because we might all be carrying concealed weapons.
I have to lug around a massive Anatomy book, a math book, three binders, four note books, and two folders because my locker bay is no where near any of my classes and I'm late whenever I try to dump some stuff off at my locker.
No one told them that the school shooters all walked in through the front door or a window and started shooting, not lugging around AKs in their backpacks. Maybe they should do something about the secretaries that don't look at the cameras when they buzz people into the building.[/QUOTE]
I think my school had that policy but since I was a new student no one seemed to care that I was carrying my backpack with me. Apparently its no longer in effect.
If you're still in school and if they repeal it I recommend putting your folders, notebooks, binders in your backpack and carrying your textbooks in hand. It hurts less.
A lot of time the safety procedures are more for a feeling of safety rather than actual safety. I posted in another thread about you can take the bolts off of any door in my school because the hinges are on the outside. And the lockdown procedure will get you killed huddling up against the wall because they're paper thin, so you're better off turning over a science table.
[QUOTE=RIPBILLYMAYS;41932311]Isn't the main issue with faculty carrying firearms at school the possibility of students getting a hold of the guns or stealing them?
Also if the school still isn't allowed to carry firearms on the job, isn't this a misguided of resources? Most of the state according to the article owns guns already so one would assume the teachers know how to fire guns. [del]Personally I think an open-hand martial arts class would be more helpful, seeing as any teacher would be tackling or trying to knock the gun out of a gunman's hands [I][B]if [/B][/I]they decided they would go on the offensive.[/del] Actually read the article.[/QUOTE]
lol
The firearms are going to be on the teachers persons, typically concealed and covered under the belt or waistband, or in a under the shoulder holster if the teacher/faculty member is wearing a jacket. They're not going to be leaving handguns laying around on desks where a child could grab them.
Also, life isn't anything like anime. By the time a person reaches a gunman to do flashy martial arts on them, he's already been shot 6 times.
[QUOTE=RIPBILLYMAYS;41932481]I think my school had that policy but since I was a new student no one seemed to care that I was carrying my backpack with me. Apparently its no longer in effect.
[/QUOTE]
This is a new thing. Reaction to recent shooting, I believe. I'd carry mine with me but I'd get an immediate attention or shot because I might have a gun.
It was recommended by the one fat ass police officer in charge of our school's safety.
[QUOTE=Matriax;41932472]You think having to arm teachers in schools in a first world country for fear of a mad man massacre is a step in the right direction? Really?
I thought it was 3rd world countries where children had to walk into schools with the shadow of armed guards near them.[/QUOTE]
This is really no different than having a police officer or security guard on campus. The amount of training they had to undergo in order to carry in the first place would put them in the same position experience-wise as a deputy in some towns or your average security guard.
To argue that allowing a trained individual to carry around a tool they were trained with would be equivalent to claiming alot of police officers and security guards are unqualified to do the exact same thing.
[QUOTE=Craig Willmore;41930722]waiting for the the "having another person with a gun would result in more deaths in a school shooting" post
as if the teacher and shooter would team up and gun down as many kids as possible.[/QUOTE]
It's like you totally ignored every single pro-control argument posted in favour of living in your own dream world. Good job! You're gonna go far!
I can't see this really solving the issue myself, seeing as a shooter usually gets the drop on people (allowing them to actually, y'know, kill someone?). You can teach the staff to shoot, but you can't ensure they'd have the resolve to actually shoot another person who clearly doesn't have that concern first, before they get shot.
This isn't how you solve your constant shootings, it's barely even a preventative measure, it's just reactionary.
[QUOTE=hexpunK;41932579]It's like you totally ignored every single pro-control argument posted in favour of living in your own dream world. Good job! You're gonna go far!
I can't see this really solving the issue myself, seeing as a shooter usually gets the drop on people (allowing them to actually, y'know, kill someone?). You can teach the staff to shoot, but you can't ensure they'd have the resolve to actually shoot another person who clearly doesn't have that concern first, before they get shot.
This isn't how you solve your constant shootings, it's barely even a preventative measure, it's just reactionary.[/QUOTE]
I don't think anyone called this the final solution to all of our shootings, but nice try.
This will at least discourage those less brave from attempting anything, and will provide a resource the staff can use in the event of an attack. Considering their training, I see nothing wrong with this.
Fantastic idea.
[QUOTE=snapshot32;41932609]I don't think anyone called this the final solution to all of our shootings, but nice try.
This will at least discourage those less brave from attempting anything, and will provide a resource the staff can use in the event of an attack. Considering their training, I see nothing wrong with this.[/QUOTE]
It might stop a few of the shooters doing it for recognition, though seeing as almost all of them end in the shooter dying, I don't think they give enough of a fuck about surviving anyway. They might be killed faster, but they can still do damage.
[QUOTE=hexpunK;41932672]It might stop a few of the shooters doing it for recognition, though seeing as almost all of them end in the shooter dying, I don't think they give enough of a fuck about surviving anyway. They might be killed faster, but they can still do damage.[/QUOTE]
So you would prefer more damage in the name of a facade of safety as opposed to actual results and less deaths?
This will not prevent a determined shooter from killing, it may stop him from doing alot of killing.
[QUOTE=snapshot32;41932700]So you would prefer more damage in the name of a facade of safety as opposed to actual results and less deaths?
This will not prevent a determined shooter from killing, it may stop him from doing alot of killing.[/QUOTE]
And working out why they kill, and stopping that would fix the problem entirely. So...uhhh...get to it I guess! This might lower the deaths a bit, not having access to the guns in the first place seems to point to it lowering them a lot more, and working out why they shoot up schools could eradicate it. So, like, what's your point? The solutions all have varying degrees of effectiveness, this one isn't going to be the best.
[QUOTE=gamefreek76;41931104].22s don't have great stopping power.
[/QUOTE]
It's called a 22 because that's how many bullets it takes to stop someone
mmheEHEHEHEH
[QUOTE=hexpunK;41932730] So, like, what's your point? The solutions all have varying degrees of effectiveness, this one isn't going to be the best.[/QUOTE]
My point is, these people are just about as well trained as most policemen or security guards, and just because you may not feel comfortable with having an armed teacher shouldn't make someone else more vulnerable than they need to be. Crime still fucking happens, and this is the best solution right now for a country that can't seem to make up it's mind.
I'm not going to argue the legitimacy of guns with you, nor will I argue the purpose of the second amendment.
[QUOTE=snapshot32;41932700]So you would prefer more damage in the name of a facade of safety as opposed to actual results and less deaths?
This will not prevent a determined shooter from killing, it may stop him from doing alot of killing.[/QUOTE]
Oh, right, I forgot that only one thing could be done at a time in human society
[QUOTE=hexpunK;41932672]It might stop a few of the shooters doing it for recognition, though seeing as almost all of them end in the shooter dying, I don't think they give enough of a fuck about surviving anyway. They might be killed faster, but they can still do damage.[/QUOTE]
It wouldn't stop a few that wanted to do it for recognition it would stop a vast majority. They want to do the most damage possible so yes they do care about how long they can survive. Cities with a majority of legal gun owners and lax gun laws have the [B]lowest[/B] crime rate in America. You can't argue with facts.
now we enter an age where school shootings became popular, and have the means to fight back. These terrorist will be shot down by all the staffs of that school before harming a single student.
[QUOTE=Lambadvanced;41932835]Oh, right, I forgot that only one thing could be done at a time in human society[/QUOTE]
Could you please indicate where I explicitly stated this is the best and only solution to all of our problems?
Oh, you can't?
That's because I didn't say it.
[QUOTE=snapshot32;41932609][B][U]I don't think anyone called this the final solution[/U][/B] to all of our shootings, but nice try.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=snapshot32;41932801] Crime still fucking happens, and [U][B]this is the best solution[/B][/U] [U][B]right now[/B][/U] for a country that can't seem to make up it's mind.[/QUOTE]
Lrn 2 reading.
This is something that you think some kind of failed or failing state like Somalia or Pakistan should need to do.
Embarrassing.
[QUOTE=SigmaLambda;41931641]This is a good thing. Arming teachers and preparing them to open fire while in class will be an effective and long-lasting remedy to the epidemic of school shootings, which are crimes perpetrated by individuals who care deeply about their own chances of survival. Maybe, when faced with the prospect of an armed home economics teacher they'll turn their mental illness towards something more productive, like chess club.[/QUOTE]
It's not a measure aimed to deter, it's aimed to stop.
Think about it. For you it might take a little while.
[QUOTE=hexpunK;41932730]not having access to the guns in the first place seems to point to it lowering them a lot more[/QUOTE]
Oh yeah because when you make things illegal it makes it [B]impossible[/B] to obtain right? Remember that time they banned alchohol? Remember how it did absolutely nothing and just spurred the development of the mafia?
[QUOTE=NoDachi;41932884]This is something that you think some kind of failed or failing state like Somalia or Pakistan should need to do.
Embarrassing.[/QUOTE]
Yet we still hire police officers and security guards to prevent and stop crime.
Tell me nodachi, how is having a person trained and carrying a tool to do some of the things a security guard or policeman does make this nation worse?
[QUOTE=avincent;41932904]Oh yeah because when you make things illegal it makes it [B]impossible[/B] to obtain right? Remember that time they banned alchohol? Remember how it did absolutely nothing and just spurred the development of the mafia?[/QUOTE]
On the same day of Sandy Hook, there was a huge attack on a school in China.
twenty two children were injured, none died.
The guy could only get hold of a knife.
[QUOTE=avincent;41932904]Oh yeah because when you make things illegal it makes it [B]impossible[/B] to obtain right? Remember that time they banned alchohol? Remember how it did absolutely nothing and just spurred the development of the mafia?[/QUOTE]
People don't realize that the continental US is not a fucking island meaning that it's a hell of a lot harder to prevent small handheld items from getting into the country
Those same people think that if we banned something, people breaking the law will just suddenly start obeying it again
[QUOTE=snapshot32;41932909]Tell me nodachi, how is having a person trained and carrying a tool to do some of the things a security guard or policeman does make this nation worse?[/QUOTE]
Because you need them.
[QUOTE=NoDachi;41932917]On the same day of Sandy Hook, there was a huge attack on a school in China.
twenty two children were injured, none died.
The guy could only get hold of a knife.[/QUOTE]
The only issue with outright banning guns in America (which I'm all for, I really hate guns.) is that everyone would still have access to guns.
It's fucking grounded into our culture, so many law abiding citizens would try really hard to keep their guns.
I just can't think of a solution that would work at all.
-snip-
[QUOTE=avincent;41932904]Oh yeah because when you make things illegal it makes it [B]impossible[/B] to obtain right? Remember that time they banned alchohol? Remember how it did absolutely nothing and just spurred the development of the mafia?[/QUOTE]
Please do tell me where a kid is going to buy an illegal gun from (they aren't cheap), to then go shoot up a school? The whole point of gun control legislation is to remove as many guns from circulation as possible without interfering with the jobs of people (hence why we can still get certain firearms in the UK, if not without some effort).
Please, tell me where the flaw in this logic is? Remove legal firearms kept by private citizens, stop the sale and distribution of legal firearms to a certain degree, improve living conditions so firearms aren't considered necessary to save your ass, suddenly criminals have less access to them, and less compulsion to bring one in for petty crime. (considering most illegal guns are legal at some point it would remove a ton (sourced from statistics gathered by the ATF))
Alcohol prohibition and firearms are entirely different matters. Alcohol can be easily brewed and distributed, it just takes a bit of trickery to disguise it and some money for raw materials. Guns (effective guns, not that pipe shotgun shit) require machinery to produce and are harder to disguise and transport due to the fact they will always look like gun parts.
Illegal guns will always be a thing, but with less of them around. They become prohibitively expensive, and only the most serious of criminals will tend to want them.
[QUOTE=avincent;41932952]I don't see why you rated me dumb. I know he used a knife, it just shows that people who are crazy don't need guns to kill people.[/QUOTE]
He didn't kill anyone.
[QUOTE=Bazsil;41932925]People don't realize that the continental US is not a fucking island meaning that it's a hell of a lot harder to prevent small handheld items from getting into the country
Those same people think that if we banned something, people breaking the law will just suddenly start obeying it again[/QUOTE]
Other countries that border each other have no problems. So uhh...your turn.
[editline]23rd August 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=FingerSpazem;41932946]The only issue with outright banning guns in America (which I'm all for, I really hate guns.) is that everyone would still have access to guns.
It's fucking grounded into our culture, so many law abiding citizens would try really hard to keep their guns.
I just can't think of a solution that would work at all.[/QUOTE]
Time to bring in the FEMA death camps to forcibly melt people down for their guns!
But no, seriously. Your various state and city police forces and proven that gun amnesties get quite a big haul, wouldn't be too hard to mop most of them up.
[QUOTE=NoDachi;41932928]Because you need them.[/QUOTE]
Okay, so now knowing that information, could you tell me how having an individual just about as well trained or better in some cases on a school campus be any more dangerous than having a policeman or security guard of their training equivalent?
[QUOTE=hexpunK;41932964]Please do tell me where a kid is going to buy an illegal gun from (they aren't cheap), to then go shoot up a school? The whole point of gun control legislation is to remove as many guns from circulation as possible without interfering with the jobs of people (hence why we can still get certain firearms in the UK, if not without some effort).
Please, tell me where the flaw in this logic is? Remove legal firearms kept by private citizens, stop the sale and distribution of legal firearms to a certain degree, improve living conditions so firearms aren't considered necessary to save your ass, suddenly criminals have less access to them, and less compulsion to bring one in for petty crime. (considering most illegal guns are legal at some point it would remove a ton (sourced from statistics gathered by the ATF))
Alcohol prohibition and firearms are entirely different matters. Alcohol can be easily brewed and distributed, it just takes a bit of trickery to disguise it and some money for raw materials. Guns (effective guns, not that pipe shotgun shit) require machinery to produce and are harder to disguise and transport due to the fact they will always look like gun parts.
Illegal guns will always be a thing, but with less of them around. They become prohibitively expensive, and only the most serious of criminals will tend to want them.[/QUOTE]
Someone didn't read much about Columbine, did he?
The arms used by Klebold and Harris were illegal arms obtained in an illegal purchase. The law didn't stop those guns from getting in their hands.
If you want something illegal bad enough, there's always a way to get it. I'm sure if we were debating the subject of the War on Drugs, you'd readily agree to this, but you won't because it's about a [I]gun[/I]
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
