DC is Now the One Lone Area of the Country ....

[HoustonRaven]

i guess concealed id be alright with, but i just see an issue with a teacher leaving it unlocked in a desk or out in the open and a kid playing with it and causing another issue. Rather leave it to professionals

A guard can be lazy about proper gun handling just as easily as one of the teachers.

Even the "professionals" have a hard time with proper gun safety ....

[HoustonRaven]

St. Louis area Police Chief calls for arming school personnel ....

http://stlouis.cbslocal.com/2012/12/...ool-personnel/

[NCRAVEN]

St. Louis area Police Chief calls for arming school personnel ....

http://stlouis.cbslocal.com/2012/12/...ool-personnel/

Good article that mentions schools being gun-free zones leaves them to be sitting ducks...

http://www.nationalreview.com/articl...ings-john-fund

I'm not sure how I feel about arming teachers though. You and I have a mutual friend who is a teacher, who I love dearly, but I'm not sure how comfortable I'd be with her being armed.

[JAB1985]

A guard can be lazy about proper gun handling just as easily as one of the teachers.

Even the "professionals" have a hard time with proper gun safety ....

thats not really helping the "anti-gun control" argument if youre saying trained professionals cant properly handle a gun, than clearly un-trained non-professionals would be more likely to have accidents as well. I dont think arming a bunch of teachers that dont necessarily want and/or are qualified is the answer. I realize youre saying itll be to their discretion, but how many will arm themselves if allowed to, at this moment out of fear. Even with the proper training if they are not avid gun owners and will not keep up with it how many forget whatever training they do receive or become complacent to responsible gun ownership. Im not against the option of guns in schools but i do think it has to be somebody with the background and knowledge and not making our teachers become guards on top of their responsibilities. Let the teachers teach and guards guard.

Im not sure what role metal detectors could have in this either. Pricey option but just having guards on-site isnt doing much but having a quicker response time if not for them.

[NCRAVEN]

thats not really helping the "anti-gun control" argument if youre saying trained professionals cant properly handle a gun, than clearly un-trained non-professionals would be more likely to have accidents as well. I dont think arming a bunch of teachers that dont necessarily want and/or are qualified is the answer. I realize youre saying itll be to their discretion, but how many will arm themselves if allowed to, at this moment out of fear. Even with the proper training if they are not avid gun owners and will not keep up with it how many forget whatever training they do receive or become complacent to responsible gun ownership. Im not against the option of guns in schools but i do think it has to be somebody with the background and knowledge and not making our teachers become guards on top of their responsibilities. Let the teachers teach and guards guard.

Im not sure what role metal detectors could have in this either. Pricey option but just having guards on-site isnt doing much but having a quicker response time if not for them.

Metal detectors would not have prevented this, the kid forced his way into the school.

[HoustonRaven]

I'm not sure how I feel about arming teachers though. You and I have a mutual friend who is a teacher, who I love dearly, but I'm not sure how comfortable I'd be with her being armed.

I think said friend would do just fine.

thats not really helping the "anti-gun control" argument if youre saying trained professionals cant properly handle a gun, than clearly un-trained non-professionals would be more likely to have accidents as well.

I never said the teachers should be "un-trained". The overall point was accidents happen no matter what. Just because there's accidents doesn't mean you shit can the whole idea. Eliminating driving all together will eliminate drunk driving accidents but that's unrealistic.

I dont think arming a bunch of teachers that dont necessarily want and/or are qualified is the answer. I realize youre saying itll be to their discretion, but how many will arm themselves if allowed to, at this moment out of fear. Even with the proper training if they are not avid gun owners and will not keep up with it how many forget whatever training they do receive or become complacent to responsible gun ownership.

We arm pilots for the same reason. The program is 100% voluntary and if you so choose, the requirements / training is quite rigorous.

Im not against the option of guns in schools but i do think it has to be somebody with the background and knowledge and not making our teachers become guards on top of their responsibilities. Let the teachers teach and guards guard.

When you're the potential victim and seconds matter, the guard is going to be minutes away.

[JAB1985]

Metal detectors would not have prevented this, the kid forced his way into the school.

In case of an intruder, yes, but why not plan a little further and prevent another columbine as well?

I never said the teachers should be "un-trained". The overall point was accidents happen no matter what. Just because there's accidents doesn't mean you shit can the whole idea. Eliminating driving all together will eliminate drunk driving accidents but that's unrealistic.

Im not shit canning the idea of guns in schools. Im saying teachers + guns isnt as good as Guards + guns, same result different option. Im not sure how you can argue that guards, that do it for a living and are trained, arent good but then doing the same training with teachers is going to end with better results. How much training is enough to arm somebody that has 0 prior gun handling experience and only is now due to fear. When said fear subsides, which it inevitably will until another massacre sadly, will they keep up with it or not? half the country doesnt own guns and of that im not 100% the ones that do are all qualified to, let alone be around children.

We arm pilots for the same reason. The program is 100% voluntary and if you so choose, the requirements / training is quite rigorous.

not a bad example, ill give you that, but they also arent around children and are locked off from outsiders in the cockpit. Are said teachers with guns locked into a glass box away from the students? not likely.

When you're the potential victim and seconds matter, the guard is going to be minutes away.

Not arguing that. Armed guard vs none at all is not much of a debate for me. If something can be put in place to aid them, i dont see the harm. Metal detectors, like NC stated, wouldnt have prevented the CT incident, but maybe it would have Columbine or other scenarios.

If youre going to go by your own theory that bad people do bad things regardless (get guns, bombs, knives, etc) than whats stopping them from just shooting a guard and going on the same rampage despite it? For me it still goes back to psychiatric measures, which parents, students, teachers need to be more informed about, specifically warning signs. Thats really the only way to prevent it, imo, and even than its not going to be 100% effective.

[NCRAVEN]

This could be it's own thread, but I figured I'd just post it here.

Here is why we have guns. http://washington.cbslocal.com/2012/...hool-shooting/

Asked on “Fox News Sunday” why Americans would need to own semi-automatic weapons, Republican Rep. Louie Gohmert said, “Well, for the reason George Washington said: a free people should be an armed people. It ensures against the tyranny of the government, if they know that the biggest army is the American people.”

Gohmert added, “Once you start drawing the line, where do you stop? … Gun laws don’t work.”

However, many gun control supporters believe this is the time for legislative action.

“It’s time for the president, I think, to stand up and lead and tell this country what we should do – not go to Congress and say, ‘What do you guys want to do?’ This should be his number one agenda,” New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg said on NBC’s “Meet the Press.

So the mayor of the largest city in the U.S. wants the POTUS to go around the "people's house" the people we elect to represent us and make his own law (which is how I read that).

That's why the American people are armed, as Gohmert stated. (BTW - JAB, this isn't directed at you, I know you're looking for sensible ways for guns to not get the hands of the wrong people)

[CptJesus]

This could be it's own thread, but I figured I'd just post it here.

Here is why we have guns. http://washington.cbslocal.com/2012/...hool-shooting/


So the mayor of the largest city in the U.S. wants the POTUS to go around the "people's house" the people we elect to represent us and make his own law (which is how I read that).

That's why the American people are armed, as Gohmert stated. (BTW - JAB, this isn't directed at you, I know you're looking for sensible ways for guns to not get the hands of the wrong people)

Technically, thanks to the beauty of gerrymandering, they get to elect themselves nowadays!

The problem is, the wrong people will always get guns. Part of the issue is the mental atmosphere a lot of people are raised with in this country. Guns are part of the American way.

But I don't believe any gun control will actually help. What's needed is a complete change of mindset for people. Bad people are bad people, and if there's a way, they'll find it.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2

[wickedsolo]

There was a guy on cbs news this morning talking about the aurora shooting and he said of the 7 movie theaters around where he lived, only one had a ban on weapons and that was the one the shooter chose. Another interesting tidbit was it wasnt even the closest theater to his house.

Now, I dont believe he was insinuating that the aurora shooter chose this place solely because it was a weapons-free zone, but it does bring up some interesting talking points.

Sent from my DROID X2 using Forum Runner

[JAB1985]

Im on my phone otherwise id link the huffington post article i just read.

Obama asked his cabinet to come up with gun violence solutions. I believed placed, although may have been who they interviewed, 3 nra member democrats who are pushing for only large magazine restrictions rather than AR bans like some lady from cali is calling for. If all that comes from this as far as restrictions goes is you can only have 15 bullets instead of 30 in your AR, id consider that a win. You can do the same with two clips of 15, so it would literally be nearly no change, which with even some conservatives calling for some sort of action, thats pretty minimal. I still hope something more happens as far as protection (guards), but honestly i cant see a reason for 30 bullets at once anyway. Thats not for protection, thats not for hunting, thats because its fun to pump off 30 rounds.

... or Zombies.

Obama directs Cabinet to launch plan for reducing gun violence

[HoustonRaven]

Just another futile attempt by folks who know nothing about guns banning something that will not make one difference just to show they've done something.

All the while, responsible gun owners are the ones who suffer.

When this country is ready to be honest about guns, then I'll be impressed. Until then, my monthly donations to the NRA continue.

[NCRAVEN]

There was a guy on cbs news this morning talking about the aurora shooting and he said of the 7 movie theaters around where he lived, only one had a ban on weapons and that was the one the shooter chose. Another interesting tidbit was it wasnt even the closest theater to his house.

Now, I dont believe he was insinuating that the aurora shooter chose this place solely because it was a weapons-free zone, but it does bring up some interesting talking points.

Sent from my DROID X2 using Forum Runner

He may not be insinuating that, but it's almost always the case that mass-shootings take place where guns are banned. (See the link I posted above)

Since even if you outlawed the ownership of guns, everyone has agreed that wouldn't stop the bad guys from getting them, which of these makes more sense?

Im on my phone otherwise id link the huffington post article i just read.

Obama asked his cabinet to come up with gun violence solutions. I believed placed, although may have been who they interviewed, 3 nra member democrats who are pushing for only large magazine restrictions rather than AR bans like some lady from cali is calling for. If all that comes from this as far as restrictions goes is you can only have 15 bullets instead of 30 in your AR, id consider that a win. You can do the same with two clips of 15, so it would literally be nearly no change, which with even some conservatives calling for some sort of action, thats pretty minimal. I still hope something more happens as far as protection (guards), but honestly i cant see a reason for 30 bullets at once anyway. Thats not for protection, thats not for hunting, thats because its fun to pump off 30 rounds.

... or Zombies.

Obama directs Cabinet to launch plan for reducing gun violence

That's a feel good law that wold have almost no affect (reducing mags from 30 to 15).

If they wanted feel good laws that would have more impact (although I doubt it would stop mass-shootings) they could do mandatory trigger locks, they gave me one with my last handgun purchase. That could help eliminate accidents, things like kids taking Dad's gun to school type shootings. Things like that would make more sense.

[HoustonRaven]

That's a feel good law that wold have almost no affect (reducing mags from 30 to 15).

Yup.

If they wanted feel good laws that would have more impact (although I doubt it would stop mass-shootings) they could do mandatory trigger locks, they gave me one with my last handgun purchase. That could help eliminate accidents, things like kids taking Dad's gun to school type shootings. Things like that would make more sense.

I agree. And I will go one further. Texas has a law on the books, often enforced I might add, that if you have children in the home, a child cannot have access to handguns. There's nuances to the law such as long rifles, age of the child, etc. since a lot of children were raised like me and were hunters before they even had a drivers license.

It's clear Mrs. Lanza didn't do the best job securing her firearms. Maybe a law like this would force the hands of folks and get them to do a better job with securing the weapons.

[HoustonRaven]

Rather relevant to our discussion is this article ....

http://www.nationalreview.com/articl...ngs-john-fund#

Some of the highlights .....

In fact, the high point for mass killings in the U.S. was 1929, according to criminologist Grant Duwe of the Minnesota Department of Corrections.

Incidents of mass murder in the U.S. declined from 42 in the 1990s to 26 in the first decade of this century.

The chances of being killed in a mass shooting are about what they are for being struck by lightning.

Until the Newtown horror, the three worst K–12 school shootings ever had taken place in either Britain or Germany.

To the point about shooters selecting gun-free zones ....

Economists John Lott and William Landes conducted a groundbreaking study in 1999, and found that a common theme of mass shootings is that they occur in places where guns are banned and killers know everyone will be unarmed, such as shopping malls and schools.

I spoke with Lott after the Newtown shooting, and he confirmed that nothing has changed to alter his findings. He noted that the Aurora shooter, who killed twelve people earlier this year, had a choice of seven movie theaters that were showing the Batman movie he was obsessed with. All were within a 20-minute drive of his home. The Cinemark Theater the killer ultimately chose wasn’t the closest, but it was the only one that posted signs saying it banned concealed handguns carried by law-abiding individuals. All of the other theaters allowed the approximately 4 percent of Colorado adults who have a concealed-handgun permit to enter with their weapons.

“Disarming law-abiding citizens leaves them as sitting ducks,” Lott told me. “A couple hundred people were in the Cinemark Theater when the killer arrived. There is an extremely high probability that one or more of them would have had a legal concealed handgun with him if they had not been banned.”

And then the nail in the coffin for that topic ....

Lott offers a final damning statistic: “With just one single exception, the attack on congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords in Tucson in 2011, every public shooting since at least 1950 in the U.S. in which more than three people have been killed has taken place where citizens are not allowed to carry guns.”

[NCRAVEN]

Yup.



I agree. And I will go one further. Texas has a law on the books, often enforced I might add, that if you have children in the home, a child cannot have access to handguns. There's nuances to the law such as long rifles, age of the child, etc. since a lot of children were raised like me and were hunters before they even had a drivers license.

It's clear Mrs. Lanza didn't do the best job securing her firearms. Maybe a law like this would force the hands of folks and get them to do a better job with securing the weapons.

I like that. I know my handgun is way out of reach (except for me being 6'7") and my shotgun is under the bed unloaded in a zipped up case, with ammo out of reach and it has a lock on the safety that is locked. I am a huge gun safety guy, if it's possible I may be over the top.

I wish Mrs. Lanza took the precautions folks like you and I do,but reports are she was of the belief the world was going to end and trained her son to use the guns, so even if she secured them he probably knew how to get them without much effort.

[JAB1985]

I agree the Mags will have almost zero effect on anything, but people will feel like they did something and sleep better, meanwhile some psychopath is learning how to quickly magazine change for the exact same results. In the interest of gun ownership though, id say keeping your AR and having to reload once is a pretty fair compromise vs trying to take them away entirely, thats all. not really supporting that notion.

I think storing guns is part of being responsible gun owner, which is why I dont think even some that are good gun owners by all other definitions still arent being responsible gun owners. I know of too many houses where ive walked in and just seen a gun lying around, or worse a fully functioning gun safe thats left wide open. If proper storing enforcement is something even gun owners are for, id jump on board with that in a heartbeat. Problem is how do you enforce it? Random house inspections?

I heard that in the case of Aurora, the guy was buying guns, ammunition stockpiles, armor, and all this other stuff over a a few month period. Isnt there someway to red flag those purchases and have the police look into it? seems with background checks and credit card use there should be an option for that.

[HoustonRaven]

I wish Mrs. Lanza took the precautions folks like you and I do,but reports are she was of the belief the world was going to end and trained her son to use the guns, so even if she secured them he probably knew how to get them without much effort.

Seven of her friends and family were on The Today show yesterday and all of them debunked that claim.

That claim came from her ex-husbands sister and one of her friends believe she made it up since they never got along.

[HoustonRaven]

I routinely buy ammo in bulk. I do it for the same reason Mrs. HR and I shop at Costco -- it's cheaper.

Ammo at the gun range, at Wal-Mart, etc is marked up sometimes double the bulk price. Last month, I'd estimate I purchased 500 rounds of 9mm, 500 rounds of .45 and a crate of 1,000 rounds of .223 (yes, that's the same round that may have been used in CT). It will take me about 6 months or so to go through that allotment. My wife and I joke is the press ever looked inside my gun safe, it would be described as "an arsenal". I'd estimate I have about 2,500 rounds of ammo currently in my safe. Every shooter / hunter I know buys in bulk.

So again, checks on folks who buy ammo in bulk will be nothing more than a burden to legit, folks all the while doing nothing on the prevention side.

[NCRAVEN]

Seven of her friends and family were on The Today show yesterday and all of them debunked that claim.

That claim came from her ex-husbands sister and one of her friends believe she made it up since they never got along.

Interesting. I'd like to know why (not that it makes a difference now) she didn't secure her guns when she knew and was worried about her son...