Gun Control

Thank you very much AH. Your sentiments were greatly appreciated by both my wife and myself.

Your response is excellent one.

People tend to look at problems where they come to light and focus on that while almost refusing to look at the root cause of the problem itself where it originated and should be addressed.

With recent 'so called news story's", unfortunately people that need help, and in despair seeing no way out, decide to take their own life, but seemingly needs to leave with some form of mark that they were here. They see the media, knowing they have the tools and will use it, as with previous story's that this is the best way.

And it isn't.

What makes the act itself so much more atrocious, the media is being used as a tool which feeds it.

I was raise on a farm and my first rifle was a single shot .22.

I'm am no longer a hunter, not do I own a gun and I despise people that do not treat guns with respect or responsibility. But I believe each individual should have a right to bear arms.

But your comment reminds me of the cyclical path of mistakes. That History will always repeat itself.

Remember the quips' that we should learn from the past so we do not repeat it. It's my opinion that this is put aside when people don't see others agreeing to their point of view and that it's inevitable that history will repeat itself time and time again.

Bravo Phoenix!

I was first taught how to respect and safely handle rifles when I was 6 years old, as my father was an Army officer. I've been shooting and hunting for years, first with my father, and later with my mother's Great Uncles & cousins on their farms in Central upstate NY.

What a lot of people in this country do not understand is that a great number of hunters now use AR-15s for hunting, mainly because they are very light and you can get a second or third round off at a deer or bear if you miss the first time. unfortunately, all the liberals see is a "Black Gun" and equate it with the military weapons, which they are not. there's a lot of uninformed people out there, believe me. When someone calls a rifle a gun, it really irks me to no end, and truly shows me their utter ignorance.....

Okay Trolls, now you can try to bite back, but rest assured, I tell it the way I see it, and I rarely pull punches and be damned the moderators and their editorial providence.

"Okay Trolls, now you can try to bite back..."

Why would think there are trolls in this thread? You know everybody who posted a comment and we're all somewhat regular to CR4. Snowboy, Boltintegrity, and myself see things differently on this issue but that doesn't mean we're trolling.

And yes, everyone of you is either a Canadian of a Euro, where the 2nd Amendment to the US Constitution does not apply......none of you have anything to lose regarding personal freedoms guaranteed under the US Constitution and Bill of Rights.

DID I mention you or the other two by name as being a Troll? No. We've had several AP's in here as well.....which i regard as True Trolls.

Just telling it like is is and the way i see it.....

And that ends this debate rather effectively, if I may say so myself.......

.

Simplistic nonesense.

I live in Switzerland. I've never been issued a firearm. My neighbours haven't been issued weapons. Nor have any of my friends ever been given anything of the kind.

With the spouting of such blatant mis-information, your old friend's propaganda has no credibility, Mr Moose

Of course you weren't issued a rifle probably because you weren't a Swiss National.

I have several friends that are, and have been issued rifles.......

I'm not quite sure how it works in Switzerland, I know it is different, and what I understand about the Swiss is that they do not have a standing army and instead have a militia, And if it is this more than likely is trained by the government.........

I just googled it, and the wiki supports what I assumed. I do not know about the weapons being dispersed, but it does state the the Swiss issues the militia its weapons to the individual. And not necessary all the citizens.

Yet the propaganda was presented as the truth. Undermines the credibility of the entire piece, don't you think? And of those who choose to propagate it, by the way

Undermines, but does not destroy it, which I think is what you are trying to do by biasing other people's opinions about the remaining claims.

Good argumentative logic tells us that finding an error in one fact does not render all facts from a given source as false. What you are doing with your claim is technically called "Poisoning the Well."

I should add that I am not trying to attack you personally, but just pointing out the way that it appears as you presented it.

Yet the propaganda was presented as the truth. Undermines the credibility of the entire piece, don't you think?

True, and it also propagating it without a solid reason to quill it is just as bad.

On moosies response I looked at all of his points that he as well as his friend used. Separating by using the different font styles.

The only thing that was questioned is about the Swiss, which was not all entirely true but in my opinion it was not totally false.

By living in Switzerland do you have anything to add other than no is isn't. Which is not a very good retort.

Because there is risk in depending on Wiki for information or references.

'....Yet the propaganda was presented as the truth. Undermines the credibility of the entire piece, don't you think?....'

That is a huge leap. Do you honestly believe the information Phoenix911 found that partially (but not definitively) supports CaptMoosie's claim, benefits your claim. What was found is damning for your claim. What wasn't found remains an open question.

Either way, What Phoenix911 found in the wikipedia article supports the general idea put forward by CaptMoosie...that having a significant portion of the population armed is correlated with low gun crime.

He stated 'all adults' but a reasonable person would understand that there would be some exceptions like: non-citizens, those with mental problems, those who are handicapped so severely they cannot use a weapon, people under a certain age perhaps along with some restrictions related to their culture.

If militia service is mandatory and everyone in the militia is issued a weapon, then even though it might not be technically correct to say all adults, you know what he means, and his point is still valid. Arguing semantics here is a diversion.

From what I know of Israel, and I have been there, every able body man and woman upon reaching 18 years of age must serve in the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF), be it the Army, Navy or Air force. Once their Active Duty commitment is up, they are required to remain in the Reserve Forces, and each is issued a rifle which they keep at home or at their place of business. most of these are M-16, but increasingly they are being phased out with newer M-4s. Usually it is their Commando Forces that carry Uzi sub-machineguns.

You do not see this type of massacre of the public at large happening there either. If there are massacres, it is usually propagated by Hammas terrorists.

It is much the same way with the Swiss, who do not have a standing army per see, but rather a quasi militia-reserves arrangement, command structure, and TOE.

I'm sharing this link.....exactly what happens when government confiscates firearms from law abiding citizens and thus creates a "No Gun Zone"....well fine and dandy, but the criminals weren't listening, nor did they care about gun laws.....

Where oh where was the outrage and indignation then?

From the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, I present:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cVyV9ojTA_IWhere of

An interesting regarding the Swiss, conscription, and their issued rifles:

http://www.guncite.com/swissgun-kopel.html

And something for you Gun Control Zealots out there to read and contemplate:

http://gunowners.wordpress.com/2012/12/17/rabid-gun-control-zealots-descend-upon-tragedy/

Moosie,

I've just come back to survey the hysteria, and found plenty.

Your piece above just fans the flames. It is admittedly published by pro gun zealots.

So, where's the balanced discussion. (Oh, no! It's GW all over again)

The bell has been rung, the horse is out of the barn, the gun has gone to battery. It's too late to outlaw guns.

It isn't too late for REASONABLE controls on who buys them. Here in gun loving Arizona, I can buy a dozen or two AR-15's any day of the week. Do I need to? NO. Does anyone? No!

I'm all for limiting the capacity of clips. Waiting periods don't bother me, nor should they anybody who abides by the law. I own guns (one for 10 years) that I've never fired.

In a week or two, the hysteria will die again and we will go back to bickering about the latest injustice.

There are no easy answers.

Having a six YO and an eight YO in grade school, and a 13 YO in Jr high, I feel qualified to speak on this subject.

Keep guns out of schools!

'...I own guns (one for 10 years) that I've never fired.....'

.

Sounds like it might be a good time to give your 13YO a working knowledge of gun safety (and perhaps the duties of a vigilant patriot?).

Not trying to tell you how to raise your kid, heck, you might have already done it. Just making a suggestion....it is one of the very memorable and important parent lessons for many people.

I was hunting with my father and his two brothers at 10. Squirrel hunting mostly. Didn't matter if we brought any home. We'd kill a chicken. I loved it.

He'll miss out on that, for now. Hopefully later.

Oddly enough, 1994 Congress passed a law banning assault weapons as defined by having a combination of a pistol grip, a flash suppressor, and a detachable magazine.

Congress also banned high capacity magazines under the same law. It was common sense, no?

10 years later in 2004 the law sunset and assault weapons (as defined above) and large capacity magazines were back into production.

Now the good news. After the 1994 ban murder rates continued to decline, just as they did before the ban and they continued to decline right up to 2004.

When 2004 hit and the ban was lifted, much to everyone surprise the murder and crime rates continued to decline just as they did the previous 10 years and they continue to decline to this day.

So, all we did was make a few people "feel" good about the legislation, but it did nothing to change the murder rate.

For that reason I would oppose reinstating something that has a track record of absolutely no benefit except to raise the used prices on grandfathered rifles and magazines. I am sure that people will be stupid enough and desire strongly enough to feel good again that they will support a new ban and we will all feel really safe.

You're preaching to the choir.

I know millions of USD were wasted buying manly clips before, and after, the ban.

If you need high capacity clips, so be it. Justify it.

It seems comic to me that features which have no influence on killing power, such as, "pistol grip, a flash suppressor, and a detachable magazine" are what sets the bar.

Well, that is because that is what passes for "common sense" these days.

Most people don't have hardly any sense at at all - so that is what is common around here.

Common sense isn't.

The blame belongs to attention price inflation.

Many people appear impoverished and apparently cannot afford to pay attention to even the most basic and important information.

At least that is how it appears to me.....but perhaps it has something to do with what I talk about and how I choose to say it......

That's too funny!

What'd he say?

This might explain it better. If you are impatient, you can start at about 0.54 and still get the full effect.

(Some people have trouble understanding them the first time they are exposed...just give it a couple minutes)

Justify high capacity clips?

Yeah I'll justify it: it's called home defense. When some criminal breaks into my home and is a threat to my family, that's the only justification I need. I will not subscribe to notion of having to change out a 10-round clip and waste time reloading, thus greatly endangering my family in the time lapse where mere seconds actually do count.

And don't discount what I just said. Remember, I am a combat vet. Have you ever been under fire by an enemy where you had to act decisively, or if you don't then you're dead?

All bullets have the capability to kill, regardless of what weapon barrel they left. Lyn, that was an overreaction, emotional, and a very stupid retort. You ought to know better.

And you're not the only one that has a child in school either.

What you believe should not be forced upon others that want to exercise their God given rights under the framework of the Constitution. Once that right is given up, it is then relinquished forever.....

There are a great many Americans who owe firearms, with the vast majority of them being law abiding citizens, not some nut job kid who has mental issues and cannot connect with another human being.

Moosie,

Your hysteria is showing.

As I said in the beginning, you can't defend against insanity.

<unsubscribes>

Hysteria you say? I think not. I'm just presenting some cold hard facts.

And as I have stated throughout this thread, the root cause of all of the insanity is a mental health issue. You seem to conveniently ignored that one single fact in a headlong desire to obtain more stricter "Gun Control Laws", when it has been repeated demonstrated that they do not work, nor have they ever worked as intended. IF you can't look beyond that issue and the TRUE facts (not the politician's lipsynch) as well as past your own nose, it's not my problem, it's definitely yours......you're the one standing on the "EMOTIONAL PULPIT", not me. YOU OWN IT. But then again lyn, why would you change this on any given issue?

I long for the good old days when site was (mostly) about engineering

Maybe think of this as a discussion about Social Engineering.

I see the political aspect looked to solve this tragedy.

I do have a problem in this, "Solve this tragedy?"

When you solve a tragedy like this, I do not trust anyone who does not act until an incident like this comes up, and then state that things have got to change.

And the concern I have is when your problems solving tactics are based primarily on what? Emotion in stead of clear thinking?

BINGO!!!!!!!!

I have no trust in politicians whatsoever.....they steal Lolly pops from children and lie to the rest of us.

''The Tree of Liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants'' - Thomas Jefferson

Though he didn't say politician (in part I think, because he was one), I bet if he were to visit today he would think the Tree is long overdue for refreshment.

I would love to see what our forefathers would think of us now, but I sadly fear the shock would kill them before we could get a definitive answer.

Just a gentle reminder that stricter gun control laws do not necessarily mean a SAFER populace. Be forewarned the pic is very graphic...

http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=464234883637033&set=a.228789917181532.55444.174212775972580&type=1&permPage=1

Just one more thought that I'd like to impart upon y'all. This statement comes from an old high school buddy of mine:

"It is about the children, but if you don't defend your rights in the face of an unthinking emotional mob, then your children won't have any rights either".

Something to ponder about, eh?

This sums it up.......

http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=472722662771586&set=a.456102341100285.99159.455942847782901&type=1&theater

There are an estimated 300 million firearms in the USA, owned by 60 million people.

Pictures speak louder than words.

I don't know why CR4 shrinks some things but not others. You'll have to control+ to zoom in.

AH, a very good retort. I couldn't agree more. The graph is extremely misleading, and not factual.

GA from me!

When looking at the graph I see that my country, Switzerland, is right up there with the good ol' USA. You and your associates were earlier quite proud of the fact that apparently everybody and their brother's dog is issued a weapon over here. Hmm... large number of weapons out in the populace = large number of gun-related murders. Well whaddya know!

We certainly don't have the social tension that you imply is an excuse for the high number of murders on your side of the Pond. Must be all of the chocolate and fresh mountain air that makes us crazy, huh? By all means, keep handing out the weapons but lock away the Toblerone, eh?

What da know? Whose right?

Homicide statistics means all types of causes, not just firearms. The map is misleading.

You Bolty, are taking things out of contex...

And yet when you look at murder rates in total....it doesn't look like making a population unable to defend itself really lowers murder rates....

In fact, when taken together, it probably would be pretty easy to establish a strong relationship between lower gun ownership and higher rates of murder by way of strangulation, knife or bludgeoning attack, poisoning, and the like.

Sure this indicates we should remove peoples right Not to own a gun.... since it can be clearly correlated with a reduction in murder by strangulation, cutting, bludgeoning, poisoning and the like, everyone should be required to own a gun. No?

You say outlaw guns, I say require guns. That should balance out.

Yeah whada know? Russia has over twice the homicide rate by firearms that in the USA, but only 14%of the firearms....also, suicides by firearms in Russia is in the Stratosphere compared to the USA.

Somehow our Socialist friend from Europe conveniently forgot those facts. Russia is a part of Europe, isn't it? Damn straight it is.

Dontcha just love the commentary about the 2nd Amendment of the US Constitution by citizens of other countries? I resent the condescending attitudes.....

If we're such lawless bada**es here in the States, why are so many people knocking down the doors trying to get in? You tell me. I'd really like to hear your slant on things....

I support our 2nd Amendment rights (in fact I strongly support the Constitution and the Bill or Rights, in spite of much of it being ignored currently). I feel it is important to voice my opinion when discussions arise on the subject.

.

While I have an opinion on the prohibition of citizens owning firearms in some other countries, for example England, I don't feel it is as important to voice that opinion. I certainly shouldn't have a say in repeal or continuation of that law. (Hopefully everyone recognizes my previous post with the image of worldwide murder rates for what it is)

.

So, I find it a little pompous, condescending, and generally inappropriate for non-US residents to argue one way or the other on the subject of our 2nd Amendment Rights, unless specifically asked for their opinion.

.

Unfortunately, our country doesn't have a great record of minding our own business. We have and continue be very involved in decisions that I would argue shouldn't be our business. As a result, I feel a little uncomfortable telling people in other countries to mind their own business when we clearly don't.

.

I realize my opinion on US involvement in other countries is not necessarily a popular one. Many people people for whom I have respect disagree. It isn't really something I believe I can convince them of, nor they me. So it is what it is.

"Sure this indicates we should remove peoples right Not to own a gun.... since it can be clearly correlated with a reduction in murder by strangulation, cutting, bludgeoning, poisoning and the like,...everyone should be required to own a gun. No?"

No! and that's an idiotic statement because you're implying that everyone in the population will one day in their lifetime be threatened with strangulation, a knife, a bat, or poison and the like. That is so beyond ridiculous that it amazes me.

Indeed it is ridiculous! It is idiotic!

.

It also happens to be isomorphic to the claim that no one should be allowed to own a gun based on a correlation between gun ownership and murder rates that exclude all other forms of murder except firearms.

.

I'm glad that you can now see how idiotic and ridiculous your position is. Now would be an appropriate time to amend your stance.

I know I just told you that my comment was intended to point out the absurdity of those who would abolish the 2nd Amendment based on a very biased a counting of murder rates, but just for fun, let's pretend like I had been a little more reserved and patient.

Just to further establish the untenability of the argument against the 2nd Amendment, I will champion that admittedly absurd conclusion, that everyone should be required to own a gun based on non-gun murder rates against the absurd argument for abolishing the 2nd Amendment. Hopefully this will help you understand that neither of these ideas is better.

Assuming you will take up the defense of the other side, here we go:

Terraman, you wrote:

'....No! and that's an idiotic statement because you're implying that everyone in the population will one day in their lifetime be threatened with strangulation, a knife, a bat, or poison and the like....'

I find your logic faulty.

By the same token, not everyone in the population will face rubella, measles, mumps or other diseases prevented by vaccination. Would you suggest then using the same predictive algorithm I guess you would implement to determine who is likely to be strangled and can therefor own a gun, to decide who is likely to become sick and therefor should be vaccinated? Vaccination certainly has a cost both a monetary cost and a mortality cost.

What about seat belts. By your logic, because not every car passenger will be threatened with bodily harm by being in an accident, then that means seat belts don;t need to be mandatory. Seat belts are expensive to install and sometimes, albeit very rarely, seatbelts do result in injury, so there is a human cost as well.... So by your logic, seatbelts should be options, right?

What about auto insurance?

Stopping for red traffic lights or stop signs?

Making claims based on sound logic?

"So, I find it a little pompous, condescending, and generally inappropriate for non-US residents to argue one way or the other on the subject of our 2nd Amendment Rights, unless specifically asked for their opinion"

I would agree with you but..this thread was posted by an American asking for opinions on the subject of gun control!! You know there are people here from all over the world, right?

As for my "stance" on the subject, I never said no one should be allowed to own a gun. Even I think that's a little excessive. My stance is simply that right now its too easy for anyone to buy a gun almost anywhere in the US...like a trade show...without a background check! Don't you think that's a little scary?

Now in terms of comparing seat belts and insurance to owning a gun for protection...c'mon Truth, really?? Driving a car exposes you to the related dangers on a daily basis. Wear a seat belt and get insurance! For the majority of the population in the US and Canada, driving to work, going to a restaurant, riding your bike, walking your dog, and life in general does not expose you to strangulation on a daily basis!...so not everyone needs a gun for protection. (yeah, yeah it depends where you live...Detroit, L.A...blah,blah...you know what I mean)

Look Truth, I've read every post in this thread carefully and I do understand where you're coming from. I don't completely disagree with what you and Moosie have to say and I see some valid arguments for your 2nd Amendment but...you have to admit that there are a few points that deserve to be challenged.

In any case, this can be debated forever so as you said...it is what it is.

Cheers.

'.....As for my "stance" on the subject, I never said no one should be allowed to own a gun. Even I think that's a little excessive.....'

.

OK. I misunderstood your position. When I read the following statement you wrote a few comments back, I thought you were advocating making 'no guns available at all':

.

'.....The truth is if there were no guns available at all, the voilence may not necessarily be reduced but the outcome of the situations would be significantly different...far fewer fatalities.....'

.

After your clarification, I can see that you were just making a point that guns are an efficient tool for killing, not necessarily advocating prohibition.

.

I apologize for attributing to you a stance that you do not support.

Also, like I suggested in reply to Moosie, it would be hypocritical of me to chastise someone for involving themselves in a decision that is not rightly theirs to make, seeing as how that is a signature behavior of the country in which I choose to live. I reap all the benefits of US citizenship, it is only right for me to acknowledge openly the things I do not support and would change about my country.

.

Anyway, sorry for assailing you with something meant for those who would abolish the 2nd Amendment.

No need to apologize Truth. I didn't feel assailed. We're all just voicing our opinions.

Emotions run high after an event like this. The thread has gone amazingly well.

Speaking as the parent of a 5 year old, I would rest easier, knowing that a trained and competent person in my daughter's school was armed and ready to eliminate one of these cowards, should the need arise.

It is my belief that these people are cowards first, and will not enter an area where they are likely to encounter armed resistance.

this thread was posted by an American asking for opinions on the subject of gun control!! You know there are people here from all over the world, right?

How do you know it was an American. We have a allot of people here that are not Americans that know more about America that some Americans. And We also have allot of people here not from America that only think they know.

How do I know it was an American who posted the this thread?...because he wrote "...BTW, I have a Concealed Carry Weapons permit...".

The term CCW is rather specific to the US. Yes other countries have them but for the most part they are highly restricted, have different terminology and you need to be a special case to get one. They don't just hand them out to citizens. Clues were also in the written English, grammar, using the word "lobbyist", capitalizing the word "Constitution", etc. English and grammar may also suggest Canuck, Britt, or Aussie but the CCW ruled that out.

Excellent observations.

Very observant, when your used to seeing something like ccw, it becomes a good place to hide, right out in the open.

Now here's something about the media ranting going on currently (as usually is the case!).

http://hotair.com/archives/2012/12/17/it-doesnt-matter-if-gun-violence-is-down/

"Any reasonably cost effective solutions you can think of ?"

Yes - each school should have an armed security guard. Many already do, in fact. It would cost no more than hiring one additional teacher per school.

Most places already can't hire enough teachers and don't pay the ones they do hire enough.

Moreover, I don't think most of the security guards I've seen on the job would offer more protection than a little less ammo and another body in the way for a determined killer.

Obviously no solution would be perfect. Even well trained police officers can get taken by surprise and shot. Thats not a valid argument against the hiring of police officers is it? By the same token, the fact that an armed security guard "might" himself get shot is not a valid argument against his hiring - if our aim is to protect children. The fact is that spree killers are almost universally stopped by A) the arrival of armed police, or B) the arrival of an armed citizen. Most end up shooting themselves as soon as armed resistance is met. Spree killers also tend to look for 'soft' targets - schools, malls, theaters, etc. Whats wrong with making schools a little less 'soft'?

As to your first statement - I'd wager that most school districts COULD if they would get rid a dead weight administrator - of which most districts are awash in.

I think taking a suggestion from one of Phoenix911 comments, and using initiatives to train and arm teachers and administrator with firearms, and possibly even compensate them for their security role, would be a far better option than paying a security guard to wander around campus.

would be a far better option than paying a security guard to wander around campus.

Well on the other hand, it'll give those subpar high school students a future job, though....

That is nutty. To what level are you going to train them? To what level are you going to arm them? Will they have armor penetrating rounds for when a shooter is wearing protection? Will they have to wear protective clothing themselves at all times. Then when they are trained, the children will be relieved to see so many people walking around school carrying badass guns, it will be highly conducive to the education function.

Nutty it is.

Funny that a similar level of concern is not a reaction to the suggestion of hiring an armed security guard to protect the school.

Where did the security guard get his training?

Is he safe around children?

What make a security guard a lower risk and better protection for a school than the teachers who already work there?\

Why is a bored armed security guard peeking in on classrooms more conducive to education?

It seems to me, hiring a full time security guard would be more expensive than training and arming faculty. I would suggest that generally several members of teaching staff trained and armed would make for a smarter more capable defense for the school than a lone security guard. Why would you choose the more expensive less effective option?

Given that violence does occur in the real world, and assuming we aren't trying to hide the real world from children, wouldn't a trained and equipped faculty provide peace of mind and not distraction?

Nutty indeed.

People seem to forget.

When I was a kid in grade school, we did practice for nuclear holocaust.............teachers and students. Like hiding under our desks would have saved us.

The point is. Rather than attempting to try to insulate kids from the evil that exists in the world. They should be told, have drills, and at least some teachers and staff should be armed. It shouldn't be forced though.

The only potential problem I can see, is in high school, when affluent white boys are reaching the age where they can go nuts and are strong enough to overpower a teacher.

Kramarat: I was reading your comment and thinking, 'what a reasonable, logically supported comment'....until I got to:

.

'....The only potential problem I can see, is in high school, when affluent white boys are reaching the age where they can go nuts and are strong enough to overpower a teacher....'

.

I seriously hope you wrote this tongue in cheek to get a rise out of people. That is such a blatantly racist (classist and possibly sexist) comment. The 'only potential problem' stems from 'affluent white boys'???

What about affluent pacific islander girls? or middle class asian jewish transgendered ...um...teenagers? or poor kind of white lesbians that look like chulos?

All kidding aside, guys from all different cultures, and with any appearance, go through a period where they are more likely to go nuts and are strong enough to present real problems. It isn't limited by their affluence either.

Well of course it was meant to get a rise. Then again, the profiles of the people that have a tendency toward these types of crimes are well documented. I suppose that there is also a media bias that highlights the white males from affluent families that do these types of things. The media is in love with that particular profile. The others are played down.

But anyway. Yes. As kids we were told of the possibility of nuclear annihilation by the Soviets, along with drills. I believe that today's kids can handle the ugly truth of the threats out there, and would have no problem with an armed teacher. It wouldn't take long before the gun would have no more significance than the chalk board eraser.....................unless it was needed.

Exactly, don't insulate, educate.

The security guard has one function, security. The fact that they are not periodically checked for mental stability, physical and mental ability is a travesty. The teacher's function is to teach, they are already impeded with the non-education voids that they have to fill.

The picture of the Israeli teacher, is to protect from an outside enemy of whom, the children are well aware. It is very different, I state this, not as an opinion but from experience.

Being a cynic, I think the nuclear drills were part of a continuous message, from the military-industrial complex, to make you frightened of "The Great Satan" so you wouldn't question the huge sales of military equipment.

I'll get the reference of this tomorrow, I understand only a few of the teachers carried, and no one new who they were. As well as the bullets they used are similar to the ones on airplanes.

It may only sound nutty to you, but the enrollment is up since they initiated this with parents from out of the district sending they kids there, and the number of problems drop since they initiated it. And I don't see what's nutty about that.

Tomorrow I'll get the references.

FrontSight in Vegas already does that...

I could find my original post, but...

Harold Independent School is the reference I made earlier, interesting enough, they were on the evening news last night.

This link has a leftist swing to it. There are links that I found that had the statistics about what happened when this was initiated.

Most places already can't hire enough teachers and don't pay the ones they do hire enough.

Your touching on another subject that deals with Teachers Unions. As far as pay, Yes base pay the teachers are under paid, but thats why they never talk about their benefits, which more than compensate that are paid mostly by the taxpayers. (it wasn't that long ago it was all paid for by the taxpayers atleast in Wisconsin)

In Texas there I was shown yesterday an article where it is known that a few teachers are packing. Enrollment is up and volence is down since it was administrated in 2007.

I'll ask for the article to reference

With this gun control issue, The experience I had and this is almost the norm.

I was flying out on business with our controls engineer who what I would call a gun fanatic. And we started talking about this very issue of gun control. Remembering discussion about it what I was twelve and referring to a 30 round clip as nothing more than a novelty. Still nothing wrong with it to a collector.

He not only got defensive but started rattling off statistics off the top of his head, laws of CCW, and a number of points which was hard to prove otherwise, and decided to change the subject, which was also difficult.

Interesting enough yesterday, he had a change of heart of near 180 degrees and not so dogged about this issue. But still a gun enthusiast.

The this is what bothers me, is when people have true convictions great, be consistent. I have issues when people are coughing up graphs and the like. Hell, the way the media is today, where do these stats actually come from and who paid for it.

But when your convictions are based on emotions, like in the case earlier where you decisions can change in an instant. There is no consistency when emotions are involved, I don't really care to talk to people like that are closed minded its either my way or the highway type of attitude. Because the responses are rather closed minded and shallow,

Gun control has always been an emotional argument from the beginning sprinkled with a few selective facts.

Whats the term they use to use........ Lighting Rod?

Anyways, that sounds like the news media on all issues.

Cross out All words with "Gun Control" and insert

1. "Global Warming"
2. "Obama Care" or "Health Care"
3. "Military Expentures"
4. "Environment"
5. "Politics"
6. "Energy"
7. ect.....

This should save some time

You guys are still at it?

Israel has a very real concern about things like this happening, and has come up with a realistic solution. Having a genuine interest in stopping killers, leads to common sense solutions:

This little video is not only fun to watch, but it makes several great points. Not the least of which, is the idiocy of thinking that smaller clips or getting rid of semi automatics, will solve anything when murderers decide to snap.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=s5PLnlRVqKQ

In the US, political correctness is the singe greatest enemy to prudent decision making.

"Clip" is a slang conjunction for cleft lip.

It's a magazine !!

Clip reduces the typing.

Just the Facts Jack......

http://dailycaller.com/2012/12/17/why-im-against-gun-control/#ixzz2FUudg9Ip

I believe that everyone here should read this excerpt from Florida St. University Professor Gary Kleck's book. Prof. Kleck is a World renown Criminologist. This article will enlighten all. This presentation if based on facts, not rhetoric.

http://www.largo.org/klecksum.html

Here is a good example of a desensitized generation.

The debate on Gun Control will never end, sort of like this thread.

I changed my Mind, but I like to add, we should also ban Subways, along with the guns.

Why? because Subways may not kill people, but it sure helps!

As I expected it would this forum got all emotional and sometimes very strange.

The USA needs to look at what is wrong in many area's,and start to take some strong action.

I was a gun owner years back but I see no reason to have military style weapons available to the public.

I grew up watching the three stooges but I still understood I shouldn't hit my buddy in head with a hammer or pipe wrench.

It isn't purely that there are too many guns or that violent video games and media is to blame.

Don't take this the wrong way as our system here in the great white north is not perfect, but from what I have seen the system in the states is broken.

Not every Democrat is a wannebe communist and not every Republican is a gun toting bible thumber. With only two partys every issue is right or wrong, good or bad , black or white. Until they find a way to the middle ground every issue will be taken over by the extremist.

On a recent fishing trip we drove through Minn. and noticed road signs advertizing gun shops and what you could shoot for a small fee. We watched as guys rode by on their Harleys without helmets. We stopped for a beer in a gentlemens club and noticed the girls were not allowed to remove their pasties or G strings. We were told to buy our beer today as tomorrow was sunday and not available.

Asked a guy next to me at the breakfast counter the next morning about the no helmet law, his response "We don't need the stinking goverment to tell us how to live our lives, this is the land of the free"

Free to play with guns and ride your bike on the highway without a helmet or health care, free to send your kids to foreign countrys to get killed or maimed but not free enough to buy a beer on a sunday or to see a naked boob.

The whole place is to the extreme, way too liberal in some reckless ways and way to prudish or conservative in other ways

Proponents of stricter gun