Are you pro-gun, or anti-gun?

[Rau]

I happen to agree. What I see though is the same schools that have become targets are those that usually forbid concealed carry on their premises. Those like me who had a concealed carry permit and intend to reapply in the state where I now live have been cleared of any crimminal convictions and hospital stays in a mental hospital.
So, why hire a guard when a dependable citizen can even thwart a threat just by being able to be on the premises with their licensed weapon. Crimminals don’t apply for license’s do they?

Would-be criminals do. Irresponsible, honest and deluded people do. It’s not possible to keep the licensed guns in just a few pairs of “safe hands”.

 

[Gorgias]

I don’t understand why the people aren’t demanding …secure points of entry for schools. why aren’t the protections for these vulnerable members of the community top priority??

This.

Initial indications seem to suggest that there were no security measures in place, and no security personnel on site. In an era when kids are willing to kill one another – and let’s not delude ourselves… it’s not that gun availability incents teens to desire to kill others, it’s that (in our time) teens are willing to kill each other and gun availability is one means that they seek out – in this environment, in which life has no intrinsic value, why are we not protecting our students against those who would wish to harm them, regardless of the means by which they choose to do so?

 

[DianePa]

But it needs an ‘on duty’ type of deterrance. The shooting a day or so ago was aimed at two armed police officers… they just happened to be eating at the moment of the attack. You can’t walk around in the school guns akimbo as a matter of course. You’d be eating lunch at some point?

The two policemen in question were on a lunch break when the male whacko entered, walked around, and went outside and returned with his equally whacko ‘wife’. The policemen were targeted and then assasinated.

Then the whacko’s went to the school where they attempted carnage but in the end she shot her mate and then herself when they were cornered.

And might I ask what lunch has to do with anything?

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Good point. Which side do we disarm?

Well, I would suggest both sides. But I am open to alternate solutions to such a problem. You might say “don’t disarm either side”. What do you thnk would happen then? Hatfields and McCoys anyone?

 

[LongingSoul]

The two policemen in question were on a lunch break when the male whacko entered, walked around, and went outside and returned with his equally whacko ‘wife’. The policemen were targeted and then assasinated.

Then the whacko’s went to the school where they attempted carnage but in the end she shot her mate and then herself when they were cornered.

And might I ask what lunch has to do with anything?

You’re saying that just your presence in the school with a gun would be enough of a deterrent to stop school carnage. You don’t need to be patrolling or acting in a security personel capacity. Just be there. What if you were sitting in the lunch room having lunch or at the bathroom? How is that going to be a help to stop a whacko? Normally with proper patrols, there are shifts and a constant line of defense present to stop a whacko entering in the first place.

People who are planning to commit suicide after their carnage or die by cop, aren’t likely to care whether anyone else may have a gun and be in the exact place they are at the exact time.

 

[Gary_Sheldrake]

Good point. Which side do we disarm?

Both would be a good start.

 

[Gary_Sheldrake]

AGorgias: ctually, unless I’m mistaken, you didn’t point to resources that you used, but instead, simply pointed to an organization or two. I’m asking for a citation that includes the data you used. You can’t really expect that we’re going to take your word for it, and go searching through these organizations’ web sites in the hopes that we’ll find the one reference you claim to be citing, can you?

Good Evening Gorgias: I gave you the sources, and you can look them up. Not being a snob or anything, but I’m not your intern.

True; but in order to suggest a buy-back, you can’t point to collective society and say “they’ll pay for it”!

Collective society pays for many things. right now we are paying for the ignorance of many.

Agreed. Yet, you only provide a descriptive argument, not an analytical one. On the surface, it sounds great; yet, it doesn’t prove your point, but rather, begs us to simply believe in your argumentation. That’s why it’s not an ROI argument but an appeal to emotion.

I never posited an ROI argument. My POV is from a humanitarian perspective.
That said, I imagine that the return on investment is human life. I think that is the highest profit humankind can achieve, although as I said before, I really have no interest in changing the law. It firmly believe that nature has ways of intervening when populations get out of control and it starts a weeding out process,. To that end, I think the Second Amendment has become something of a cosmic roach motel as far as I can see from reading the papers. The problem will take care of itself over time. It already is, it seems. People with guns most often kill themselves, relatives and people they know for the most part. You can also look that up.

Thank You,
Gary

 

[DianePa]

You’re saying that just your presence in the school with a gun would be enough of a deterrent to stop school carnage. You don’t need to be patrolling or acting in a security personel capacity. Just be there. What if you were sitting in the lunch room having lunch or at the bathroom? How is that going to be a help to stop a whacko? Normally with proper patrols, there are shifts and a constant line of defense present to stop a whacko entering in the first place.

People who are planning to commit suicide after their carnage or die by cop, aren’t likely to care whether anyone else may have a gun and be in the exact place they are at the exact time.

Yes, people who are intent upon killing the victim and then themselves may well not be deterred by the presence of a police officer or even armed guard or civilians. But they are psychopaths who would kill even with a knife as was done by that mental case who did just that to his three room mates. But you must admit that posting a ‘no guns allowed’ sign at the entrance of a school or business is basically telling the maniac that this is a place where he/she can have free reign, a gun shooting gallery and an open invitation without threat of being thwarted in his purpose.

 

[zeloc]

But you must admit that posting a ‘no guns allowed’ sign at the entrance of a school or business is basically telling the maniac that this is a place where he/she can have free reign, a gun shooting gallery and an open invitation without threat of being thwarted in his purpose.

This is false. I worked at a federal building in the US and there were signs outside every entrance that it was against federal law to carry a firearm into the premises (which included parking lots and grounds outside of the actual building). I don’t think that anyone thought about targeting the building or grounds or that it was an open invitation to anyone. Having anti-gun signs has nothing to do with the security that is present or not present.

 

[LongingSoul]

Yes, people who are intent upon killing the victim and then themselves may well not be deterred by the presence of a police officer or even armed guard or civilians. But they are psychopaths who would kill even with a knife as was done by that mental case who did just that to his three room mates. But you must admit that posting a ‘no guns allowed’ sign at the entrance of a school or business is basically telling the maniac that this is a place where he/she can have free reign, a gun shooting gallery and an open invitation without threat of being thwarted in his purpose.

I’m talking proper boundary and point of entry security. Not just a mall cop wandering around. Design schools in future that have secure boundaries and put electric fencing on a wide perimeter of existing schools if that are very open plan. As Zeloc says, federal buildings are targets and security is of a certain level. Schools are being targeted it seems daily but there is the strange hesitation to actually do anything proactive about it even though the active security measures elsewhere have been proven effective.

 

[YADA]

This is false. I worked at a federal building in the US and there were signs outside every entrance that it was against federal law to carry a firearm into the premises (which included parking lots and grounds outside of the actual building). I don’t think that anyone thought about targeting the building or grounds or that it was an open invitation to anyone. Having anti-gun signs has nothing to do with the security that is present or not present.

Yes … I work in a federal building - likewise posted that it is against federal law to carry a firearm … of course all of the building security guards carry firearms … so your claiming that posting school grounds, theaters and shopping malls as gun free zone somehow equates to a federal office building where you have to show ID to gain access, have your bags and person searched [unless you are a federal employee granted building access and even then subject to random searches and have to display your ID] to get into the building.

The Clackamas Town Center is posted no fire arms … yet this concealed carry permit holder was able to confront the shooter … while he never got a clear shot clearly his presence impacted the event in a positive manner

“I’m not beating myself up cause I didn’t shoot him,” said Meli. “I know after he saw me, I think the last shot he fired was the one he used on himself.”

kgw.com/news/Clackamas-man-armed-confronts-mall-shooter-183593571.html

 

[DianePa]

This is false. I worked at a federal building in the US and there were signs outside every entrance that it was against federal law to carry a firearm into the premises (which included parking lots and grounds outside of the actual building). I don’t think that anyone thought about targeting the building or grounds or that it was an open invitation to anyone. Having anti-gun signs has nothing to do with the security that is present or not present.

Every federal building I enter has a screening program upon entering. Not the same as an open door public building. You are mixing apples and oranges.

 

[maryjk]

This is false. I worked at a federal building in the US and there were signs outside every entrance that it was against federal law to carry a firearm into the premises (which included parking lots and grounds outside of the actual building). I don’t think that anyone thought about targeting the building or grounds or that it was an open invitation to anyone. Having anti-gun signs has nothing to do with the security that is present or not present.

Maybe it is all those armed guards that are protecting you at the Federal Building.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

Well, I would suggest both sides. But I am open to alternate solutions to such a problem. You might say “don’t disarm either side”. What do you thnk would happen then? Hatfields and McCoys anyone?

Can’t do it…violation of rights.

The possibility of two or more groups within the United States going "to war’ with each other is a bit fantastic.

A good example…there are millions of licensed hunters in the U.S. There are also millions of gun owners who are NOT hunters…all have guns.

In the aftermath of 9/11 none of these “Elmer Fudd” hunters or Assault weapon crack pots formed a group (militia, vigilante…whatever) and began shooting up Islamic Mosques.

It doesn’t happen in America.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

Both would be a good start.

Can’t do it…violation of rights

 

[LongingSoul]

Yes … I work in a federal building - likewise posted that it is against federal law to carry a firearm … of course all of the building security guards carry firearms … so your claiming that posting school grounds, theaters and shopping malls as gun free zone somehow equates to a federal office building where you have to show ID to gain access, have your bags and person searched [unless you are a federal employee granted building access and even then subject to random searches and have to display your ID] to get into the building.

The Clackamas Town Center is posted no fire arms … yet this concealed carry permit holder was able to confront the shooter … while he never got a clear shot clearly his presence impacted the event in a positive manner

kgw.com/news/Clackamas-man-armed-confronts-mall-shooter-183593571.html

Is the Town Center rule just a suggestion or does it carry the weight of law? It doesn’t seem that the lad was charged for his concealed carrying?

Why shouldn’t schools be guarded like other target government agencies? Schools are obvious targets and these are vulnerable children who should have the privilege of proper protection.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Can’t do it…violation of rights.

The possibility of two or more groups within the United States going "to war’ with each other is a bit fantastic.

A good example…there are millions of licensed hunters in the U.S. There are also millions of gun owners who are NOT hunters…all have guns.

In the aftermath of 9/11 none of these “Elmer Fudd” hunters or Assault weapon crack pots formed a group (militia, vigilante…whatever) and began shooting up Islamic Mosques.

It doesn’t happen in America.

Well, you had said in post #625 that it is a dangerous condition for our Country to be in to have growing cultural diversity and polarization. So now you are saying it is not so dangerous to have cultural diversity because we Americans just know how to get along despite our cultural differences. Which is the truth? Is it dangerous or not?

 

[DianePa]

I’m talking proper boundary and point of entry security. Not just a mall cop wandering around. Design schools in future that have secure boundaries and put electric fencing on a wide perimeter of existing schools if that are very open plan. As Zeloc says, federal buildings are targets and security is of a certain level. Schools are being targeted it seems daily but there is the strange hesitation to actually do anything proactive about it even though the active security measures elsewhere have been proven effective.

So then you seem to be willing to create another TSA agency that would supervise the establishment of some form of security to protect us from each and every possible threat of a maniac.

If a mental case is out to do harm they will find a venue where they might do just that. Today it may be a mall or a school, tomorrow it may be your doctors office or a bus picking up passengers. Where would the security begin and where would it end, if ever.

No need for that when many of us have weapons and would use them to protect ourselves and others being threatened. But we can’t avail ourselves of our right to protect ourselves when the anti-gun idiots deny us entry into some of the most vulnerable places and require us to leave our weapons in the glove compartment of our vehicles; not a very secure place to begin with.

I have a number of friends with concealed carry permits and know a few others. Never have any of them used their weapon as a threat to another. Most in fact keep the weapon very well concealed in an attempt to simply blend in without disturbing those who might cry at the sight of a gun.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

Well, you had said in post #625 that it is a dangerous condition for our Country to be in to have growing cultural diversity and polarization. So now you are saying it is not so dangerous to have cultural diversity because we Americans just know how to get along despite our cultural differences. Which is the truth? Is it dangerous or not?

Actually we get along because of the rule of law.

The danger is to our American culture. That should come first.

Immigrants came to our country to leave their old country and culture behind. For many reasons.

People beg for asylum in America because of government and/or culture in their countries.

The promotion of diversity or nationalism, other than the American culture and patriotism, makes a thinking person wonder why an immigrant would WANT to come to America in the first place.

 

[LongingSoul]

So then you seem to be willing to create another TSA agency that would supervise the establishment of some form of security to protect us from each and every possible threat of a maniac.

If a mental case is out to do harm they will find a venue where they might do just that. Today it may be a mall or a school, tomorrow it may be your doctors office or a bus picking up passengers. Where would the security begin and where would it end, if ever.

I’m not talking about just any venue. Talking specifically about schools and the type of places where there are large numbers of vulnerable people that aren’t permitted by law to own a gun for self defense. Even if by law everyone allowed to own a gun was allowed to carry it in readiness at all times… there will still be places were the majority of people are unarmed because they don’t qualify under law to be armed.

No need for that when many of us have weapons and would use them to protect ourselves and others being threatened. But we can’t avail ourselves of our right to protect ourselves when the anti-gun idiots deny us entry into some of the most vulnerable places and require us to leave our weapons in the glove compartment of our vehicles; not a very secure place to begin with.

But you can’t seriously be saying to the vulnerable groups like school children ‘leave your lives and safety in the hands of a random stranger with a gun wandering around in the school premises’. Without any organisation, how can an armed defender be guaranteed at any one time. Are you expecting that the law should actually oblige every qualified adult to carry a gun and be prepared to act in defense of the vulnerable? As a rational thinking adult, I can’t imagine being happy to trust my childrens schooltime wellbeing to that sort of uncertainty. All you are doing is putting more guns in the mix, not making a guarantee of credible armed defense for the children.

I have a number of friends with concealed carry permits and know a few others. Never have any of them used their weapon as a threat to another. Most in fact keep the weapon very well concealed in an attempt to simply blend in without disturbing those who might cry at the sight of a gun.

Why don’t ‘the people’ form a defense league of all the people they know who are trustworthy and carry guns, as a public service to really be in line with the constitution. As we established earlier, the constitution was created for the sake of the ‘general welfare’… not primarily to protect an individuals rights regardless of the general welfare. That means that each and every person has the right to adequate defense of their person… just not those who might qualify for a gun. To be fully respectful of the constitution, those who are lucky enough to qualify should by law be required to devote equal time to defending the nonqualifiers in a real and practical way in order for the equal safety of *every *American.

It seems to me that people are only cherrypicking from the constitution to suit themselves. They really don’t care about the general welfare that it was designed to protect.