Surprise, surprise (The NRA's suggestion)

More guns! Armed police at all schools.

$$$

We're turning into Israel but unfortunately, we don't have a Sugar Daddy (another U.S.) to pay for all of it.

I know one gun in the hands of the principal at that school last friday would have helped.

So you have been to Isreal AP and can compare the two?

Yeah, nobody knows anything about places they haven't been to.

You know, because there aren't any books, magazines, television, or any other way to gather info.

Solid effort, as always, TJ.

In my experience no. The only part of the US that even comes close to resembling Israel in the Arizona and Texas borders out of the 40+ states that I have visited. You keep reading books and magazines and watching TV for experience we need more people short on experience and long on opinion. Pun intended of course. If we were like Isreal everyone would have served in the military, handled a weapon and understood what living under a real threat was all about instead of talking out of your ass which is your specialty. .

You're so awesome.

Clearly, you're the best.

My specialty is laughing it you, and you never fail to provide another reason to laugh.

Go sip some wine, Sally.

Deep as usual, Nancy.

Not too impressed by their suggestion unless they follow it through all the way.

Certainly would be a job creator, with over 130,000 schools in the US. (public and private k-12)

Lets assume $80,000/yr per officer for salary, equipment, training and benefits.

That is only $10.4 Billion (Big B).

With an estimated 10.8 million guns sold last year, just to pay for that the tax would be about $1,000 per gun. Applications this year were about 16.8 million so far, so assuming that was the actual figure, the cost per gun is only $620.

Maybe adding onto the 10-11% excise tax on firearms and ammunition would reduce the overall cost on a per gun basis, but really this is just another unfunded mandate (Mandate of the NRA). It is just as irresponsible for them to suggest this, as it is for the US Congress, or our State elected critters to do the same thing. Create a program without adequately providing for a revenue stream to pay for it.

Sorry, I live for story problems.

On the subject of facts I found this interesting tidbit in the NRA article on MSN.com .

"The rate of firearms-related murders in 2011 was 3.2 per 100,000 people. In 1993 the rate of firearms-related murders was 6.6 per 100,000 people. The number of firearms-related murder victims dropped from more than 17,000 in 1993 to 9,903 in 2011.

Yet the shootings in Connecticut have raised the possibility that Congress might enact restrictive legislation that would incorporate the 1994 ban as well as measures to increase funding for treatment of mentally ill people."

So with gun related murders dropping by close to half, 42%, why is there a need for a gun ban? I don't see the other side of the argument there.

Hopefully someone will come up with meaningful legislation that will both protect the public at large, and not take away the rights of law abiding citizens. Sadly, until we can figure out a way to get criminals to obey the law, there will still be crime.

I, for one, thoroughly enjoy your story problems Dogfish.
Especially because they are brutally honest

Seems to me that the NRA may have jumped the shark today.

That information was from MSNBC in the article that on the NRA. Those numbers are not the NRA's.

The ban expired in 2004 and weapon sales have increased significantly since that time. If the amount of guns on the street directly or indirectly correlated to an increase in murders, then the murder rate should be much higher than before the ban.

After the ban ended, from 2007-2012 there were over 77 million applications processed to purchase guns in the US. In excess of 10 million per year. Wouldn't this have led to a greatly increased murder rate? Well, it didn't, so the anti gun folks are wrong when they say the availability of more guns leades to a higher rate of murders.

I am a pro gun person, provided that they are used responsibly.

Wow, that is what you got from what I said? This might explain why people react to you the way they do.

What I was getting at is that the additional homeland security proposed is insane as far as cost:benefit. Schools are already drastically underfunded (so much so that the WA State Supreme Court had to step in) yet no one is eager to provide additional tax dollars. And now we considering adding another 100,000+ people to stand around with guns in an attempt to limit unpredicatable future events. I just think there has to be some rational thought about what we are going to spend and what we are actually getting for our money.

I also find it incredibly interesting to see the flip-flopping of people that always shout about "smaller government" and the "nanny state" yet seem to hop on board as soon as they get scared.

Ya think!

Its the banker/economist in me. Sorry.

Dogfish,

Story problems have long been my favorite as well. I find that they are more readily solved using rational analysis than visceral knowledge (emotion). Unfortunately the 2nd Amendment and gun control debates use little to none of the former and a too big heaping of the latter. I probably qualify for cranky old fart status by being annoyed by well paid government representatives engaging in debate using visceral knowledge. WTF.

Sg

Now your annoying me. Never and I mean NEVER say your sorry for being honest (even if it is brutal).

Have a good day ladies and gentlemen!

Let teachers/administrators carry if they wish to. Don't make it a mandate, just let it be OK. No extra pay. No extra training. Just let them shoot back.

Pot Kettle AP. I support zero of that the NRA proposes and I support zero about what the govt. has said so far. Me personally I think we already live in a police state where people take next to zero responsibility for their own safety. I think we have way too many police. The schools are no where near underfunded. Take all the BS programs out of the schools and there is plenty of money to do the best job in the world. Again go to China, India and other countries and see how they do more with less instead of relying on TV and magazines to form your opinion. People react the way they react because they surround themselves with like thinkers and reject anything that challenges their views. That’s why you and your cabal won't read dissenting opinions from sources not approved by the Cabal. You care more about who says it than what is said. You don’t have the nuts to say what you think because your friends might think differently of you. Your comment about Israel says it all, that is the mainstream liberal opinion, Israel is bad and only successful because of US funding. Never having set foot on the ground. The NRA does the same as you in terms of pandering to its audience but they are worse. Give me a friken break.

Armed guards seems to work pretty well for the politicians pampered a$$es. Anyone been to D.C. since 911 and not seen armed guards hanging around there little meeting hall. I agree that putting a cop at every school will look and feel more like a police state but it is effective. I kinda agree with Gutz get rid of "gun free zones" and let the teachers shoot back. It will reduce police pressesnce and even the fight (at this point its a fight). I think training them and setting up an arms room/locker for them would come at a cost but there is no way that any reaction from these tragedies is free. I'd think training and arming would be cheaper than hiring new and arming.

Choad, you're in typical form.

I'm not sure exactly what I said that has seemed to piss you off so much? Since your reading comprehension seems to lagging, I'll tell you that we appear to be agreeing on the basics here. You think there are too many police. I'm saying I don't think we should have additional police in schools (because it is costly and not effective... just like other "security" measures I've pointed out for 10+ years on this board).

For some reason, you also devoted a lot of your words to tell me what I think. More impressively, you got most of it wrong.

P.S. You seem REALLY obsessed about Israel and, particularly, about assigning things to me that I didn't say.

How about the National Guard? Just make "school duty" part the National Guards responsibility? It seems like it would take minimal training and expense to post a soldier at school during the day. Down in Mexico there is a Federale on every street corner and likewise this seems like a reasonable expectation of our military.



About the National Guard
The National Guard, the oldest component of the Armed Forces of the United States and one of the nation's longest-enduring institutions, celebrated its 375th birthday on December 13, 2011. The National Guard traces its history back to the earliest English colonies in North America. Responsible for their own defense, the colonists drew on English military tradition and organized their able-bodied male citizens into militias.

The colonial militias protected their fellow citizens from Indian attack, foreign invaders, and later helped to win the Revolutionary War. Following independence, the authors of the Constitution empowered Congress to "provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the militia." However, recognizing the militia's state role, the Founding Fathers reserved the appointment of officers and training of the militia to the states. Today's National Guard still remains a dual state-Federal force.

Throughout the 19th century the size of the Regular Army was small, and the militia provided the bulk of the troops during the Mexican War, the early months of the Civil War, and the Spanish-American War. In 1903, important national defense legislation increased the role of the National Guard (as the militia was now called) as a Reserve force for the U.S. Army. In World War I, which the U.S. entered in 1917, the National Guard made up 40% of the U.S. combat divisions in France; in World War II, National Guard units were among the first to deploy overseas and the first to fight.

Following World War II, National Guard aviation units, some of them dating back to World War I, became the Air National Guard, the nation's newest Reserve component. The Guard stood on the frontiers of freedom during the Cold War, sending soldiers and airmen to fight in Korea and to reinforce NATO during the Berlin crisis of 1961-1962. During the Vietnam war, almost 23,000 Army and Air Guardsmen were called up for a year of active duty; some 8,700 were deployed to Vietnam. Over 75,000 Army and Air Guardsmen were called upon to help bring a swift end to Desert Storm in 1991.

Since that time, the National Guard has seen the nature of its Federal mission change, with more frequent call ups in response to crises in Haiti, Bosnia, Kosovo, and the skies over Iraq. Most recently, following the attacks of September 11, 2001, more than 50,000 Guardmembers were called up by both their States and the Federal government to provide security at home and combat terrorism abroad. In the largest and swiftest response to a domestic disaster in history, the Guard deployed more than 50,000 troops in support of the Gulf States following Hurricane Katrina in 2005. Today, tens of thousands of Guardmembers are serving in harm's way in Iraq and Afghanistan, as the National Guard continues its historic dual mission, providing to the states units trained and equipped to protect life and property, while providing to the nation units trained, equipped and ready to defend the United States and its interests, all over the globe.

Mission accomplished!

Right AP its always the other guy. Take a lesson from your buddy Todd he says what he thinks and stands behind it . One might not agree with him but you have to respect that at least he is unafraid to say it like he thinks and rarely crawdads.

Costly, no doubt. But, its "crazy" effective. Prisons , the congress, the senate, government installations, the pres, billionares, dignitaries all have armed guards and any attcks on them are really low percentage, not zero, but pretty close. If you guys get guards; why cant my kids' school have one. I surley dont want cops at every school but the govt. loves to protect us from ourselves and this seems right up their alley. And since we are now putting killing people in a buisness model maybe the govt. has the expert advice on this.

So once you've "visited" a state you know all about it? I mean growing up in Israel and all...you should know right?

I do not agree with the premise of putting police at every school. It just does not make sense.

I trust that you growing up fat and stupid makes you an expert at being fat an stupid Shthead. You reward that trust everytime you post.

If you'd just crawl back into your hole you wouldn't be constantly shot full of holes.

Its scary, I agree. But the opposition is saying that a bad guy with less bullets is better? So 9 dead and save one for himself is a much better option? If my kid was one of those nine, I sure as sh!t wouldn't be praisin that new capacity legislation. Gun legislation should be completley out of the equation. Dont worry about me and my guns and just worry about bad guys with guns. Figure out how to protect inocent un-armed people on a different level than you already do. Here are the answers: Theory: you can have some body fight for you, you can fight for yourself, you cannot be there, or the gun cannot be there. Application: put guards at the schools, arm the teachers, have no schools at all (everybody gets home schooled), or completley remove a part of our culture and confiscate every weapon from every person.

So how much do you think insurance will cost the school district if teachers are armed? One mishap lawsuit could close down the district. Arming teachers is a bad idea all around. I think a lot of people who suggest so are thinking some perfect scenario and not reality scenarios where people die in cross fires or are blown away by law enforcement.

Even bullet proof windows and heavy security doors which are locked down during school hours are not 100% but a lot safer than relying on teachers to get it right under fire.

I have no idea what any of this will cost. If I'm thinking of the perfect scenario; you are thinking of the most imperfect scenario. I think we have to be willing to accept the average result. I'd rather accept the result where people can fight back, fairly do so, and in a timely manner. I dont disagree that sh!t could really hit the fan and backfire but I think the overall trend of mass shootings would go down.

I don't think they will go down one bit. We are talking crazies here who plan on dying. Why should a teacher with a pea shooter be a deterrent? More like an added challenge...a bonus. Plus now some of these nut jobs wear body armor.

There is no way we will be willing to accept a single mishap with a teacher/firearm/child in a school. That would be a media/lawsuit frenzy. And armed teachers will never be LE. At best they will be teachers who have had some firearm training. Not the same at all.

We have been accepting this sh!t since the nut [Bleeeeep!] in Texas back in th 60's. Now we want to do something! Now! This is BS!!!! If I lost a family memeber in these past tragedies I'd be phukin pissed that something was done before I lost my family member. Why is this recent one such a big deal? Because they were kids? You mean columbine, Vtech, the 6 year old in the movie theater werent kids. We have been accepting the worse case scenario for too long. Let me fight back. I'm not suggesting pea shooters either. I'm talkn pistols in person stopping .45 acp, snub nose 44's, AR's in .458 socom, 12 gauges. I mean stuff that will put some seriuos phukin holes in the little pissant. Drop the phuker pronto amigo!!!!!!!!!!!

"We are talking crazies here who plan on dying. Why should a teacher with a pea shooter be a deterrent?"

Because the sooner they are dead, the fewer they can kill.

Like I said some seem to only see the perfect wild west scenario where good guy blows away the bad guy.

A more likely scenario in a chaotic moment going down is good guy unloads a full clip most or all missing bad guy and instead killing other good guys. Then good guy is blown away any way. Other good guys who remain standing had better disarm within seconds or face being shot by LE.

BTW, my bro in law is in the SS. He met one of the first in to that theater in CO. Said it was a complete blood bath. Also agrees that armed civilians would only magnify the problem for them.

Interesting statistics on the downward trend in handgun-related murders. A good start, in my opinion. After thinking about it, I'd also be interested to see some numbers on how much cyber crime has increased over that same time period. My guess is that the numbers would suggest that more and more of the petty thieves who might have attempted armed muggings (which often end in someone getting shot) in the early 90s are turning to the safer, potentially more lucrative options the Internet provides them. To be sure, a shortage of scumbags is not the reason for the decline.

For all I've seen, the number of guns in circulation has a lot less to do with how much senseless killing goes on in our country than the number of psychos our society seems so adept at producing. That said, I don't think investing in better care for the mentally ill will fix anything. The people we know are crazy enough to be a menace are mostly under supervision. Every day, life feeds another person on the fringe the [Bleeeeep!] sandwich that sends them over the edge, thereby creating another "cracked" individual (the sort of person capable of, say, shooting 26 kids and teachers) that we don't know about... Until it's too late. There's just not any realistic way to avoid that.

The statistics are fairly undeniable: countries that severely restrict gun ownership don't have people getting murdered with guns. By supporting our right to bear arms (one I don't believe we should give up), we make guns available to not only the responsible people, but also to the crooks and the insane. I'm afraid that's just a reality we have to deal with.

Please think of all the kindergarten, elementary school, middle school, and high school teachers you have known over your life.

Now think about what percentage of them should ever have a gun in their hands, ever.

Now tell me why this is such a good idea anyway.

In the movies everyone hits what they shoot at. In a school with teachers carrying I suspect the statistics will be more similar to what they are when people have handguns in their homes...which is that innocent people are far more likely to die.

Fish on...

Todd

Like I said you only see the imperfect scenario. The average of the two will result in less deaths than the current state.

BTW, I served in the U.S. Army and I saw them train some pretty stupid people how to shoot straight, identify badguys, and not shot their buddies. They did this in nine weeks.

Also BTW, I take the reigns in a college class from time-to-time and I really dont feel safe at all knowing this [Bleeeeep!] could happen to me and my students. And I really dont like that the govt. and birds with sticks up their butts say/think I cant defend myself. If I can shoot straight, idendtify my target and whats behind it, then I'm sure my colleauges can too.

Unfortunately the only "training" you need to legally carry a gun is the ability to fill in a form and the ability to sign a credit card slip.

Fish on...

Todd

Just when I thought school tragedies couldn't get any worse.

Well who died and left you the phukin Dan S. for the day?

Some of us think realistically. If I remember right LE responded to that school in 90 seconds. So you have 90 seconds to be a hero and find and kill bad guy and then disarm or you have a real good chance of being shot by LE. Oh and don't forget about the other armed "heroes" who just happen to be looking to shoot some guy carrying a gun.

BTW, the last I checked they don't hire US Army to protect the POTUS, et al. Maybe this is why?

Well I dont really know what would have happened. I hope something better. Since this is all anecdotal and conjecture I have no way of knowing. The best thing to do is take a scientific approach and test it. Train some teachers with armed defense tactics and put them through a mach scenario. Then compare it to teachers put through the same scenario without training. Then compare those results with the results of the last 45 years of nut bags shootin folks. I nor anybody else can solve this through conjecture and "what ifs". I believe I have the right to protect myself and I want the chance to do it.

Nope. Until some idiot decided to use them as full time combat infantry the Nat Guard were weekend warriors for emergencies only.

NRA Membership EXPLODES.....

Looks like both sides can't let a tradgedy go to waste! The National Rifle Association, while staying mostly quiet in the immediate aftermath of the mass shooting in Connecticut, has registered an average of 8,000 new members a day since the tragedy, an NRA source told Fox News.

While this broadly aligns with trends seen after similar incidents in the past, the surge in membership this time is said to dwarf past trends.

The source, based on his access to an internal memo prepared by the organization’s membership division, said both the number of individual contributions to the NRA and their average amount have risen significantly in this period.

Amid the uptick, the NRA is planning what it describes as a “major” news conference on Friday. In its first public statement since last week’s shooting, issued Tuesday by an aide to NRA President Wayne LaPierre, the organization also conveyed condolences to the murder victims’ families and expressed the group’s willingness to offer “meaningful contributions to help make sure this never happens again.”

I couldn't help everyone on campus thats for sure. But if the little puke comes into range with me or my students I think I'd trade lead with him. 90 seconds is a lot of time when you can fire rounds at a round per second or less. You can get a lot of rounds out in 90 secs. The quicker he's down the better. It could backfire and I get shot in the face and lay there with a loaded gun for the nut bar to pick up and use against others but I coud also kill him and end it right there. Which scenario plays out best when trained and tested?

Lets suppose that an unarmed teacher has zero% chance of defend him/her self and (your kid) students from nut job, and armed teacher has >zero% chance. Which would you choose?

Seems pretty simple.

Yup. And the 15 year veteran missed with all shots. Of course a civilian would do much better.

Lets suppose that an unarmed teacher has zero% chance of shooting (your kid) students, and armed teacher has >zero% chance. Which would you choose?

Seems pretty simple.

You hear shots. Pull gun for defense. Door swings open and a man is pointing a gun at you:

A) You shoot Bob the PE teacher.
B) Bob the PE teacher shoots you.
C) You shoot a cop.
D) Cop shoots you.
E) Perp shoots you.
F) You shoot the perp but he's wearing body armor. See E.
G) You shoot the perp and are a hero.
H) Fantasy scenarios: You and Bob draw down realizing neither one is a threat. You and cop draw down realizing neither one is a threat. These can only happen as a result of improper training. Training say's you kill someone who points a gun at you.

Not good odds of being a hero. Mostly it ends up bad.

I bought 15 30 rounds mags for my Colt 6920 when Barry was first elected.

You RWWJ's have issues with reality. The REALITY is that he was there, got off shots and missed with all of his training. No idiotic what if spin job can change that and make it somehow better.

Classic Sol Duc to be giddy about this whole, sick thing.

The classic SolDic part isn't him being giddy, but him being stupid enough to drop that kind of change on ammo because he thought it would actually be banned.

Dumbass.

Fish on...

Todd

my thoughts keep going back to this story: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pearl_High_School_shooting

Every teacher shouldnt be armed, but at least the principle, or the PE teacher, or a designated guardian who is trained to respond. At least someone at each school.

I'm not looking to be a hero. I'm looking to give myself a dog in the fight. You forgot scenario I.

I) sit there like like a little pu$$y, get shot, and watch other people get shot as they hide under desks and chairs. While we wait 90 seconds of pure hell for the cops to show up. And to hear from you they arent very good at their job when they get there. F that man.

A dead nut bag is not a threat. Wouldn't have a gun in my hands by the time the cops got there anyway. Comunication between LE and a school with todays technology would be pretty easy to set up. Its like you said....some of us think realisticly.

More fighters, less flighters!

Since you have done nothing but criticize. What do you have to offer for a soultion?

Hey you stupid fck, that isn't ammo....pmags are not ammo.

Shthead would be hiding in the back of the closet behind the women, shoving twinkies in his mouth with tears running down his chubby cheeks. Just think of Piggy on lord of the flies

The fact that he likes doing it doesn't mean he's wrong

Fish on...

Todd

Got to go fellas. I'll check back later and see where this has gone or not gone. Good conversation to be having and we need to keep it up and somehow get the folks that matter to hear us.

I'm sure the folks that matter would be really impressed with this conversation.

No, really.

Did I miss where you offered a solution? This thread is a game of Whack A RWWJ. Down you go. Next.

First you should take a poll. I bet it will show the majority of parents will refuse to send their kids to schools that have armed civilians.

Second I trust me with a gun much more than I trust you with a gun. You OK with only me having a gun to protect your kids? I promise there will be no accidents and I'll try to protect you too. I just don't want to have to worry about you having a gun when it hits the fan.

We've all been behind that guy yacking on his cell phone driving all over the road. If you were to ask him he'd swear he's the safest driver out there.

Just because you train someone and give them a gun does not necessarily enable them to prevent a situation such as what happened. It goes back to the flight and fight scenario. Then once the decision is made, is the person proficient enough to disable the threat? Has the person been thru the proper stress inoculation of simulated return fire? Its one thing to shoot a paper target and another to shoot at something looking and aimed in on you.

Probably be a lot cheaper to just have a metal detector and control access in and out of schools than to risk more damage from some one trying to curve a bullet around two third graders.

HERE you may find your poll fails.

Yeah, cuz a rural Texas burg of 1100 people is always indicative of what the country in general would support or not.

Fish on...

Todd

And down goes another RWWJ. Next.

A simple search produces many results concerning safety of armed public vs gun-free zones.....here's one
Link below:

Newsmax: Dr. Lott, your work suggests people are more secure, rather than less so, when firearms are readily available in society.

Dr. Lott: Simply telling them to behave passively turns out to be pretty bad advice . . . By far the safest course of action for people to take, when they are confronting a criminal, is to have a gun. This is particularly true for the people in our society who are the most vulnerable.

Read Latest Breaking News from Newsmax.com http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/Lott-guns-Connecticut-shooting/2012/12/15/id/467903#ixzz2FnUvxTZb

Thats all fine and dandy but how many people go out and actually train with their weapon? By train I mean engaging silhouettes, not random trees, cans, or squirrels.

Not sure if any of you have read the book "On Killing" but it has a section that goes over the advantage that shooting a silhouetter presents over the usual objects. In the early World War, shot accuracy was an issue. This inaccuracy was attributed to Soldiers shooting on bulleye targets similar to archers. When faced with a live human aiming a weapon at them, their reaction was to shoot high. Now if you look at ranges both civilian and military, most have a silhouette that resembles the upper portion of a person. This type of silhouette when combined with training and practice results in muscle memory that allows the shooter to engage center mass, as that is what they are accustomed to.

I guess an example can be in Gang wars. Not many people are dropped with two to the chest. Its a pray and spray mentality because many are not trained. They just have the weapons and attempt to destroy their enemy. I believe the same will occur if majority of the untrained civilian population takes up arms in an effort to be less complacent. Stray shots are never a good thing....

I agree something needs to be done, but our Children deserve a well planned out initiative not a knee jerk reaction to a travesty.

"a Fox News opinion contributor"
"American Enterprise Institute"
"His most recent book, co-authored with Grover Norquist"
"Lott is best known for his role in the gun rights debate, particularly his arguments against restrictions on owning and carrying guns, the ensuing controversy surrounding the data and methodology used in his research, and his use of a sockpuppet identity to support his position on various websites in 2002 and 2003."

Not surprising he's your go to guy.

Not these guys. These guys will drop and roll while shooting ten bullseyes out of a 6 round clip.

Unless the assailant just got off of work at Target, they won't usually have a bullseye to aim for

No. I conclude correctly that his presence did not prevent the perps from mass murder. Your argument seems to be "well it could have". It didn't. End of story. Grasp some other straw.

It's widely known that all bad guys have a different colored aura and dress all in black which makes them easy to pick out of a crowd.

All you have pointed out to me is that you are afraid of guns......and therein lies the problem. Your fears run your life. You're pathetic.

And there it is. If I disagree with you nut jobs then I'm anti gun. I haven't counted lately but I think I have about 18 guns. Rifle, shotgun and the rest are pistols. My favorite being my Sig P238 .380. And I have a CCP but rarely feel the need to carry. Don't tell her but my wife has four boxes of 100 grain .327 mag ammo under the tree. Gotta start reloading that caliber because it's F'ing expensive and hard to find at times. I'm on pins and needles waiting to see what other stupidity you can spew.

You're so anti-gun that you buy guns and ammo so others can't. I see where you are going.

My argument is nothing can be done to prevent whack jobs from getting weapons and going on killing sprees while we all want freedom (owning firearms and letting the mentally ill walk the streets). Even rational human beings have a temper or a breaking point. You bring up an example that actually refutes your own argument. Armed 15 year officer and STILL it happened. Arming everybody is just plain idiotic. And arming teachers? We don't even do a good job of preventing pedophiles from becoming teachers.

I like how the pussies who are so scared that they can't go out to their mailbox without packing heat think reasonable people who aren't such pussies that they need to carry a 30 mag clip AR with them wherever they go are the pussies.

That takes the kind of mental gynmastics that I didn't think a dimwit like Slappy could perform without pulling a muscle.

Fish on...

Todd

Yeah. Time to get off the net. Don't usually logon on Saturdays but not allowed to fish today. Maybe I'll go buy some more guns and ammo. With all of the wingnuts driving up the price it's better than buying stock.

Where did I say you were anti-gun? Where?
I don't give a damn how many guns you own......all that takes is money. And you can kill targets all day long. So what? Who has a use for 18 guns? To me they are tools.....not "Hey, looky what I got!" pieces.
You are still afraid of guns and distrustful. Nice world you live in. Ever consider moving?
It's what's in your guts that matters. Running from trouble says all I need to hear.

I'll call you FeatherButt from here on.

The arm guards you refer to, majority of them are former Special Operations, Swat, or some other specialty. I highly doubt a person with those skill sets will work a School. Thats where I think majority of the issues will be. PLU has an armed police officer. At least when I was there, but all she did was hang out in her car or in campus safety. One of the biggest aids to having an armed presence is a show of force. Even if you aren't shooting people, show your face, make rounds, make the impression that you are out and about to act more as a deterence than anything else.

I always thought that Officers assigned to schools were banished for pissing off the wrong person. Could be wrong, but the fact of the matter is you need Vigilant well trained people that won't get complacent. Good luck finding that..

It's too expensive and, as you've shown, not effective. Besides, if we are going to be a police state then you might as well open up other freedoms you are willing to give up. Give us your solution. One that's proven to work.

Funny stuff. Some are collectors but shoot fine. What I don't want is you armed. I don't consider you a rational person. But since it's legal then others need to be armed to protect themselves from you. You see the circle?

The NRA only wants a police state when it means that the gun and ammo industry can be the one to make billions selling guns to millions of non-governmental folks.

Fish on...

Todd

Easy, FeatherButt ...... your fear is showing.

You don't even recognize where your real fears should be directed. That must be awful.

So now you finaly agree with a RWWJ. I dont want you, an armed killer in my class. And I have the right to protect myself from you. But you dont want me too protect myself from you. Thats not making sense. Its clear that prior gun legislation and gun free zones put in place by LWDB's are not effective. I agree with slab that bird brain is distrustful and thats the key. But if the voters in WA showed anything to birdbrain is that we are not scared of him having a joint at his gay wedding. I'm not scared of potheads and gays so dont be scared of responsible straight shooting easily trainable citizens.

Also did you realize that you basicaly restated the foundation for the second amendment. Armed protection from those who have the power to take your life and liberty. hmmmmmmmm

Mass murder happened before "gun free zones". That's why they were put in place. Do you see the circle now?

Obviously. So your answer is back to the past. Full circle.

The FeatherButt crowd's solution is to expand the "free-to-gun-us-down" zone.

More fun for all that way.

Nope. Just don't want idiots like you guys carrying guns around children. And I bet I'm in the majority.

If a person is going to commit mass murder, I highly doubt a sign will stop them or change their mind. Full circle (just wanted tos ay it, was feeling left out)

So what? Mass murder happened before there were guns. Circles are indeed round!

I'll bet you see a lot more "bad guys" in the world than I do......something wrong about that, don't you think?

Yeah especially a guns allowed sign.

Small IQ's: "why hell we tried dat der no gun zone thing and there's still dem dar whackos runnen round so let's go back to trying what didn't work before dem dar anti freedom zones. Hell if we'd just arm evy body even 6 year olds dar wodn't be any sitiations no mor. Ya'll don like dat den how bout just me armed? I'm an xpert in dese sitiations. Trust me round ya kids y'all."

Normal IQ: Nothing is going to prevent whackos in the society we have created for ourselves.

Dumbasses: When people are killing each other with guns, the answer to fix it is to make sure we have more guns.

Fish on...

Todd

Wrong, as usual.

Less guns would mean guns would have to be grabbed, which, of course...none have, and none will be.

Fish on...

Todd

What's really ironic is these same numb nuts are all for employers to be able to do anything they want because it's "their business" unless they say "no guns".

Its alright. Biden, as the newly appointed Gun Czar as I will call him, will get to the bottom of this. Too bad, in my oh so humble opinion, the black market on weapons is more of a threat. But they mostly kill underprivileged ghetto people in the hood. SO of course not a top priority at the moment.

I thought you phuksticks wanted rich people to tax? Kinda counter productive to reduce their profits by reducing and banning manufacture dont ya think. Some folks would loose jobs as well.

Please address him as Vice President Czar Biden.

Back to trying to resolve all murder? Just to let you know....that's never been done and it's a stupid argument.

Fixed it

Why is it that every soldier in battle has a rifle? Its because of the assumption that every enemy soldier has a rifle. Why was there a nuclear arms race? Its because there was a fear of nukes being used by the opponent. Why is it that every one of these shootings is a one sided affair? Because its similar to genocide where people have been duped into thinking they are safe. In battle there are wins and losses and nothing can change that. There hasnt been a nuclear war. Gun free zones have set peopleup for genocide like events. Let us show that we can protect our selves first, if a battle insues, let the dust settle and then try to tell me I'm not allowed to protect my self. Second amendment gives us a right but it also insures a responsibility. We are responsible to protect our own life and liberty but a few dickheads just dont understand that and want to prohibit us from doing so.

Fear = Loss of certain freedoms

Simple formula that holds true through out all of time.

Ah...so now we are at war.
Zillion to one you will never be involved in a shooting yet you run around like chicken littles. And you nitwits accuse everyone else of living in fear?

You read that in whacko Slab's post from a whacko.

Complete crap and sloppy even for you. I can name some in this state alone but I'm watching the game.

Duh

The only thing that a "gun free zone" does is is keep law abiding citizens from carrying guns into the zone.

As I said you shouldn't believe all of the crap your ilk reads on the net:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lakewood,_Washington_police_officer_shooting

To find a solution, we first need to define the problem or problems. I don't suspect that we (the collective we) would ever come to an agreement as to the problem(s) to start.

Next, solutions should be aimed at addressing the problem(s) not the symptoms.

Personally, I think that this problem is one without a solution. As long as evil people are in the world, bad things will continue to happen to good people.

Sure, there may be things that we as a society can do to take the edge off and/or make small differences here and there, but we will never fix this problem. Implementing these control measure while trying to maintain a reasonable standard of "freedom" is the task.

Security and safety are first and foremost personal responsibilities. Take what steps you need to try and protect yourself and your loved ones and don't leave that task or responsibility to anyone else.

"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." Edmund Burke

Yup. You shouldn't be allowed on a plane unless you are carrying.

might have saved a couple thousand lives in one day......but who's counting?

And the "solution" has cost what?......never mind, we're not counting that either, right?

You aren't smart enough to fanthom why the world doesn't allow civilians to carry firearms on commercial flights. No use trying to explain it to you. Know any Boeing engineers?

Why don't you explain it to me. And while you are at it, explain how 911 would have been worse off, OK?

No I will not explain 911 to a dolt. Look up pressurization. Once again it's proof positive why you want highly trained individuals in situations not dopes like you. Geez. I feel like a grade school teacher.

Oh my, stupid is running rampant. You won't explain because there is no explanation that holds water. If you think that an airplane will blow up because the cabin gets perforated with bullets you might be right....if you're using a 155 howitzer......hand gun not so much. Ever see those handy little drop down face masks......guess what.....they supply oxygen.

Try again?

And worse case scenario ...... would have killed how many??

Very sad, but very true. :>(

Airplanes don't blow up because of a puncture in the skin. People, like Payne Stewart, and whomever doesn't immediately get oxygen die. If you hit the wiring....possible death. Hit the fuel....death for all. Nobody...and I mean NOBODY is going to agree that a complete imbecile such as yourself should be allowed on a plane with a firearm. It's simply amazing that you are allowed one at all.

They use frangible bullets. Not designed to penetrate solid objects. Just don't steep in front of one.

Here's the thing on this whole assault weapon ban. The proposal does not fit the statistics. Based on 2010 data from the FBI, out of 8,775 firearm related murders, 358 were directly linked to rifles. 358 as a percentage of 8,775 is 4.1%.

Please justify banning something that is responsible for 4.1% of all firearms murders, and 2.7% of all murders? Knives were respionsible for 14% of ALL murders, 12,996. Hands fists and feet were responsible for 745 murders, about 5.7% of all murders.

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/tables/10tbl20.xls

Maybe it's because I demonstrate how to vote sanely. You GW lovers shouldn't have any rights.

By Golly, there's an option for FeatherButt.......New York. I'll bet the house would be filled with "I love NY" in every nook and cranny. Go for it, Beautiful. It's your kind of town.

Air Marshalls most definitely do not carry or use frangible ammunition. Most use some sort of a hollow-point though, which many agencies have moved away from based on more recent wound ballistics studies.

Putting a bullet sized hole in the hull of an airliner is not much of a problem. The training that most folks carrying guns on airplanes receive can be summed up as this, shoot as much as you need to, just don't miss.

Interesting statistics there Andy, again illustrating that we first need to get a handle on the problem, which doesn't seem to be the existence and ownership of semi-automatic and automatic rifles.

Just duct tape the damn hole...no biggie.

Keerist. What a bunch of long winded drivel mixed with a bit of
actually thoughtful ideas.
I seems that Air Marshals get enough training to be considered
effectie in case of an airborne need in Civil air service.
I suspect the school system could also find the wherewithal to
create some of those types of skills in individuals.
We will always have the psychos and attention starved ones.

Viva NRA

Todd you're still a malignant misinformed pussy.
No point in being concise on this thread.

Can't argue with that!

Coming from you two, I think he would consider that a compliment of the highest order.

Polishing odds ball sacks tonight? congrats?

Lilly your a d1pshit, thanks for proving it over and over again.
It all boils down to one issue, people who own guns are OK with the government limiting the amount of rounds when hunting, but they are outraged at limiting the amount of rounds when killing people.

The second amendment is not about hunting. Its about protection from those who can take your life and liberty. If the ones who can take your life and liberty have 30 rounds then I want 30 rounds to fight back with. Its not just whacko's in school shootings either. Its foreign nation attackers and potentialy even our own government. Remember the constitution was written as an act of independance from a tyrant government/monarchy. Using hunting laws and pratices as some sort of leverage from either side is silly.

The 2nd Amendment's main focus when written was preserving the ability of government to form a militia when and if needed.

The amendment in and of itself is actually quite short. The extrapolation and application of it due to some "tricky" language is of course a much longer story.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

If you look at much of the discussion that lead to the amendments, all of what was discussed regarding the 2nd had to do with protecting the nation against foreign invasion via militias, the military, a navy, etc. This history does not include anything in the way of dialog regarding individuals rights to protect themselves, but rather it speaks to their duty to protect their country. It does seem logical that those two things would go hand in hand though.

Conversely, much of the content or the foundation of the first ten amendments (bill of rights) was based on other existing bills and laws which did speak more clearly to the rights of individuals to bear arms for personal protection and hunting specifically. There is also language that talks about the government right to disarm the people when and if needed in those preceding documents as well.

All good context to keep in mind when folks start quoting the 2nd amendment as their "right" to own any weapon they want, unimpeded and unregulated by the man. That simply wasn't the intent near as we can tell.

You should reread your post illashe. kinda amusing I think.

number of rounds, Black rifle or flintlock. Doesn't matter it's the
psychos in the mix that cause the problems. Wise one, you should
cough up a cure for the nuts on the street.

You mean the one's Ronney turned loose?

Why have such a narrow literal interpretation of the 2nd when so many people use a much more open intepretation of other amendments like the 1st, 4th, 5th, and the 6th?

How do you mean?

Courts are the ones that get to interpret and apply constitutional law.

Well some porn and some really disgusting art forms are protected under the 1st but it dosent say them specifically. I'm OK with them but other people are highly offened by it. Admitedly caught red handed crooks and murderers go free by loop hole open interpretations to search and seizure, trials, and due process. The courts do make the decisions but there are some who view the 2nd as only applying to militias. Its the "security a free state" part that is the most open to me. A gunman with intent of killing people at a school presents a portion of a non-free state localized to that school. Do we need armed well regulated militia volunteers to guard the schools instead of police? Or can one person act as their own well regulated militia and make a choice to weather to bear arms for the protection of that free state? I believe that gun free zones at schools have created high potential for a localized non-free state.

There isn't much in the way of gray area with regard to protected forms of speech. What is prohibited is very clearly spelled out and case law is well developed to the point that very little new case law is coming out that affects the first amendment. As I am sure you know, case law is the ongoing interpretation of the constitution, state, and local laws that the courts use to guide their future actions and decisions. In other words, case law is a record of interpretation that is used by the courts until they have reason to deviate from that, typically new and unique circumstances that have not been encountered previously.

Paraphrasing, forms of speech and expression that are not protected include those that would incite lawless action, real threats, and things that are "obsecene" among others. Case law has carefully and fairly completely defined each of these things and there are standards and/or tests in each case. For example, obscenity: "The basic guidelines for the trier of fact must be: (a) whether 'the average person, applying contemporary community standards would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest, (b) whether the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by the applicable state law; and (c) whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value." Miller V California.

Fortunately for all of us we have these standards as terms like "really disgusting" are entirely subjective.





There are no loop holes in the application of the 4th amendment in fact there is probably more case law for this amendment than any other. It is a very hot topic for obvious reasons. Rather than loop holes, there are extremely well developed policies and procedures that government must follow to ensure that the rights of the people are not violated. When government fails to adhere to these standards, policies, and procedures, their work, even if it is for the purpose of convicting the guilty, must be thrown out. This has to be the case as the alternative is to not hold government (law enforcement) to sharp standards and in the process open the door for significant abuses of power, and infringement upon rights, and a loss of objectivity and reason in the system. As long as everything is done "correctly" there are no loop holes and the guilty will be convicted as long as their guilt can be proved "beyond a reasonable doubt" and searches and seizures will be carried out with "probable cause."





Regarding the 2nd, I am playing the devils advocate to some degree here. I for one am entirely glad that we have adopted a liberal interpretation and I do think arming ourselves for the purpose of defending ourselves and others is a right we should all have as long as we are responsible with it.

These days we have obviously replaced the need for a militia with well developed state, local, and federal law enforcement and military. It was different times back then.

So, do you support putting more of these fine well developed state, local, and federal law enforcement and military at our schools?

For now no.

First we need to clearly and accurately define the problem. Next, try to create and implement a reasonable solution or mitigation at least.

Until then, as Dogfish has illustrated, the numbers/facts don't seem to justify or reasonably indicate any of the proposed "solutions."

Take a stab at the problem. What do you think it might be?

Call it evil, call it bad people, call it mental health issues, call it a television problem.

Call it what you will.

As I said earlier, in my opinion it is a problem with no solution. Sad as it may be, I think we will have to continue to accept this as a part of our reality. We will scrabble all of the pieces around and maybe make a small difference here and there. One life saved in the big picture is worth the effort, but the whole has to be considered.

Do your best to protect you and yours, respect those that respect you and the laws of the land. Be polite, be courteous, but have a plan to kill everyone you meet and you should get by fine.

Thats the problem in my book. I cant do my best to protect myself if I follow the law of the land at a public school. I still could not do my best if the guy had a ten round mag. Am I therefore infringed?

What are you proposing? In other words, how do you see yourself most able to protect yourself and others?

The "most able" part is a rub. There are very few times when I'm "most able". That would require full time packing, and I, for one, am not willing to live my life that way. I'll pack when I feel most vulnerable, but other than that, I'm pretty much at life's mercy. That is not an excuse to do nothing, however......even at the cost of one's life. The principal at the Conn. incident, for example. He gave his best effort, and that is the quickest way to stop the killing. I have few heroes....he, however, was one.

1st, I propose to eliminate gun free zones. Replace the signs with new signs that read "Please dont kill people here" or "Mass murder free zone" and have a little stick gunman assasinating an unarmed stick person with the no symbol around it.

2nd, (<<<<< get it), let teachers, administarter, etc. make a choice wether they want to bear arms to protect themselves. Fully documented concealed permits, full disclosure and pictures to the police and all faculty of who is packn' at the schools. A better comunication system between police and schools. If nobody wants to pack at a particular school; then place two armed police officers at the respective school.

3rd, a full/continued and funded investigation of the behavior associated with mass school shootings.

4th, a full investigation of something more sinister at play. 911 had terrorist to blame or a conspiracy of an inside job. Lets turn over a few stones and see if either is at play with these mass shootings. Mentaly ill people are easy targets to convince to do [Bleeeeep!] like this. I heard rumor that a lot of suicide bombers in the mid east were not all together up stairs.

Well, if it isn't the great sheep philanderer to prompt the oldie but goodie. Takes one to know one.



BTW, what is your suggestion?

About the best BU can come up with is gfy. And that tells
you a lot. Another self-abuse advocate.

Ho Ho Ho and a Merry Christmas to all.

Was he supposed to respond to the theory that these mass shooters have all been somehow programmed?

Its all conjecture with no penalty for any suggestion. You and the zinger pilots wont even offer anything. Nothing, nota, zip, zilch. Just try to shoot down J7 and ignore the whole thing. Your bullying has most likely prevented someone from offering a great solution or definition of the problem.

I did sit down and watch the PBS special this weekend called "After Newtown". I think you can stream it. It was pretty well done form both sides with a little of the usual anti-gun bias youd' expect from PBS but not bad. There is a part where they talk to brain scientists who have studied the brains of the shooters and others like them. They talk about a part of the brain called the Amygdyla (sp?). Responsible for adjusting your emotions and cooling you down when your heated up. They say that the folks that do theses shootings have defective amygdylas. Dosent seem too far fetched that somebody(ies) can identify and take advantage of this. A good number of the shooters were well known to have mental problems.

I wonder which shooter's brain they examined, since most of them either blow their own brains out (leaves little to be examined) or are sitting in jail (like the Colorado shooter) and he still has his brain inside his head.

Not sure, watch the show. You can analyze live brains with electrodes and what not these days. I agree they cant do much with the scrambled eggs subjected to hydraulic shock.

Looks like we have two options, either we round up all the crazies Ronney turned loose, and force them into treatment, or we start banning what ever guns they like to kill other people with.
Clearly we can't have both.

Another interesting tid bit from the show was that armed security at schools was actually Slick Willy's idea. Was and still implemented at inner city schools. But way under funded and not expanded to the rest of the country.

Amazing the right all of a sudden want's to spend more money on guards nationwide. Let me guess...no new taxes we'll just use the "entitlements" those freeloading poor live off of causing more people to go off the deep end.

Still nothing to offer. huh. Not surprised.

Youre right. Clearly some don't want me to defend myself and others dont want to pay for my protection. Thats real! I would like to hear a good idea how to protect me at work. You know, at either of the universities I've worked at, have they ever pulled me aside and said "OK young buckie here's what you do in the event of an emergency". I am genuinely frightened by this and the events that have taken place. Nobody has my students or myself protected at the point of attack. Thats real! I dont conceal or open carry at work nor am I allowed nor should i have to. Thats real! At work I need to be focused and 100% intrinsically committed to delivering the best knowledge I can provide. Thats real! Please come up with something that protects a lot better than the current state.

"Quit being a pussy and accept the risks intrinsic to a free society.

There are no guaruntees in a free society....."

100 % correct and the biggest fact that most wanting a law for everything fail to grasp. Freedom has two faces.

Pretty easy to say when you're not on the front line.

j7 the drive is approximately 1000x more dangerous to everyone than a school shooting. If you were worried in proportion you would ride the bus with a helmet and personal air bag .

You waste words and time, idiot.

bye bye

Yeah especially the way I drive.

I understand its rare, I understand that it may never even come close to happening to me. But, whats wrong with me carrying a pistol for protection where I'm the preferred target? Accidental discharge? Pretty rare and I'm liable. Shoot the wrong guy? I'm still liable for that. Shoot the right guy? That would be encouraged by all getting shot at. You're scared of me? Who's the pussy now?

I'm not satisfied with anybody being a bullet sponge until the cops arrive. Let me arm myself and put some protection there.

J7,

So do it already.

It sounds like you understand that school mass shootings are a statistical outlier of extremely low probability. Because the risk is so low, there are no good, cost-effective, reasonably accepted by everybody kind of solutions that would further reduce that low probability by another 90%. Every teacher and administrator could conceal carry, and that would not prevent the next mass shooting, but more likely than not it would significantly reduce the carnage. But from reading about this on internet forums I've learned that a majority of people, internet types at least, are adamantly opposed to teachers, administrators, and some are even opposed to having commissioned police officers on campus. Good luck.

Sg

I wont because the risk of getting fired, going to jail, loosing my gun rights altogether is far higher than a mass shooting occurring in or near my class. Deliberately breaking laws wont help me or you. So everyone do me a favor and keep your guns away from the local whacko and I'll be at work to soak up a few rounds just in case I hit the mass shooting lottery.

Like Coley, I see no simple solutions here. I am okay with having an armed guard, not so much with armed teachers. I do think the guards should be VERY well trained on shooting in a crowded scenario and in a hostage scenario. My concern is we have seen many instances in which trained cops have shot innocent bystanders. The one the comes to mind recently was in Times Square where the cops did get the bad guy, but shot something like nine bystanders.

My other concern is the fact that so many schools sprawl all over the place. In those cases it may take a dozen guards to adequately cover the area. I think our kids are worth the cost, but we need to recognize the coat will be significant and we need to do it right with no corners cut on the training.

Another "solution" I don’t see mentioned too often would be doors that the teacher can lock from the inside. That seems relatively low cost and might help a lot in some situations.

The fact is there is nothing we can do to prevent 100% of these situations.

With all due respect (certainly not tic) Dave, I see a problem with the idea of an armed guard, so to speak, vs. a few armed teachers.

First.....numbers. One guard down with one bullet, then no defense. Maybe a combination of both?

I think collateral damage is a possibility.....and unavoidable. Weigh that against an unchallenged gunman.....no comparison. There is not going to be a perfect choice and I think the best solution is to put as much weight on the side of child protection as possible.

I do agree with your last statement.

I agree with the sprawl issue. Especially at a college campus.

I think the locked door would be problematic at a college but adapatble. In college people are free to come and go as they please and every day someone is runing late. I'd have to stop every time and let them in. Disruptive but perhaps safer unless the shooter is one of the students in the class. I dont know how that would play out if people are confined to the classroom or trapped where they cant get to the door to get out and the help cant get in. The guy at V-tech chained the doors shut in a similar fashion. Seems ripe for the hostage situation as well.

I dont understand how a techer with a concealed carry permit is two different people. The teacher could have a concealed carry permit and be sitting at the table next to you and your family at a resturant with a gun. And that is OK because he/she went through the proper legal channels and the police trust him/her enough. But when the teacher crosses the campus border he/she becomes a complete imbisile incapable of handling the risks and responsibilties he/she already accepts. Why and how?

If its so rare and so costly then leave it to personal choice. I thought personal choice was a big deal these days so allow the teachers to make a choice. Lift the gun free zone BS. Its not about saving everybody its about saving yourself. If you can save yourself and it helps everybody then thats great. But it should be about saving yourself.

If you want cheap. The concealed weapons permit costs the carrier more than the provider. If you want training then make the carrier pay for the training if they want to carry on campus. Have full disclosure with pictures and meetings with police, faculty, and adminstraters of who is carrying at school and when they will be there. Very cheap and very responsible.

My estimate was $80,000 per officer, and based on Clinton's grant program, the cost was $133,000 per officer, and that was in 2000 or 2001 dollars.