I was once a corrections officer. Back then we were not trained to warn, or wound. Our instructions were to leave them hanging on the fence. Also, there were only certain stations armed. Guards are outnumbered in most instances and guns would be an easy grab, if they decided they wanted them, no matter how many you could take down.
The first responders, firemen, had two police officers that were volunteer firemen. One was a Lt. As for the school, it ‘might’ have been different, but then we ‘might’ have to define an acceptable body count at best.
Technically, guns were invented to knock down castle walls, so people with swords could go in and kill.
Oh, there were no victims? Or, are we considering an acceptable body count?You’ll face a monumental battle arguing for a firearm registry. As history has shown (and is showing now with some of the legislator proposals), firearm registries have a strong tendency to lead to confiscation and harassment. None of my “former”firearms, are registered, nor do/did they legally have to.
Remember, it’s already been stated that the dreaded black rifle WASN’T used in the recent shooting… but it’s still the centerpiece of the debate.
I agree, anyone who needs a 30 round magazine shouldn’t be hunting. Hunting isn’t the only form of recreation with firearms. Modern sporting rifles are excellent platforms for competitive shooting and long range marksmanship, and those magazines are well suited. Additionally, and arguably most importantly, they’re extremely well suited for home-defense.
There already is licensing in place for class 3 firearms. There’s already regulations on dreaded armor piercing ammunition. There already is a federally mandated background check for new firearm purchases. I will honestly agree with one caveat though, there should be a mandate that “private” dealers at gun shows be required to have FFL licenses to participate - meaning they too would be required to conduct background checks. But honestly, they’re a ridiculously small percentage of sales at the dreaded gun shows.
Actually, in 2 of the recent shootings. It was the presence of citizens, in the legal possession of firearms and conceal carry, who saved the day:
The off duty officer in the theater, carrying concealed while off duty and enjoying a movie.
The young man carrying concealed in the mall food court, while shopping with friends.
You know, prodigal, I think you’re just trying to find reasons to disagree with me at this point. If you want to find proof for my points, just go look up cities with extremely high gun ownership rates; and their crime rates.
If you would have shot an inmate at my place of employment you would have been looking for a new job. They tried to fire the officers who took warning shots.
I hear ya, I just got off a 24 hour shift and need to get a bit of rest here. Have a good day.You know, prodigal, I think you’re just trying to find reasons to disagree with me at this point. If you want to find proof for my points, just go look up cities with extremely high gun ownership rates; and their crime rates.
I need to stop posting, heh, this thread is sucking up my day!
That would a secondary application.
T’was great having some civil discourse with you. God bless, and I’ll probably run into you again!
The fact that there were victims, while tragic, is logically irrelevant. There would have been more victims, had people not responded. There are enough firearms in America, and easily accessible smuggling routes (see our inability to stop the drug trade), that if they were all to be banned and taken away from law abiding citizens… criminals and mentally deranged would still be able to obtain them. Even if one’s view was full a complete disarmament and banning, America at this point in history has crossed the Tiber on that option being possible.
They would have changed the number of defenseless victims who died.
To me, that is finding acceptance in a certain body count.
Good. You call it acceptance of a body count. I say its acceptance of reality. You want to blame the guns. I want to blame the people who use them. The difference is that with you, when you take all the guns away, you still have people capable of violence. They will just use another object. With me, its the acknowledgement that some people are evil and/or crazy and want to hurt others. In my instance, I am allowing people to defend themselves with the most useful object at out disposal, one that is designed specifically for stopping crazy/evil people.
Actually the shooting at the shopping mall ended with the shooter killing himself at the site of CCW with his weapon drawn.
It’s great to get the perspective of a peace officer here, and I agree with everything you say. As a substitute teacher for three districts, two small and one large, I am in a number of different schools each month. Very few have an armed officer on regular duty, although some, particularly the high schools, have frequent visits throughout the day from school district police. Unfortunately, now we must be concerned with not only the crazed student opening fire at school, but also the complete outsider who chooses to come onto campus and commit acts of monstrously evil violence.As a cop who teaches police officers to respond to this kind of violence, this is an excellant solution, however, there are not nearly enough police officers to pull this off.
There’s also another problem: the schools. We’ve had SRO (School Resource Officer) possitions eliminated in my jurisdiction because the SCHOOL didn’t want armed officers in their school. The department was not willing to unarm their officer - which is a good thing - and the School eliminated the possition from their funding.
Any School with out an armed guard, these days, should be sued for not preparing for what, statistically, will be many times more likely to hurt or kill your children in school than anything else: violence.
As I’ve said on several other threads now: We spend MILLIONS of dollars on schools for what is considered ‘overlapping, multi-layered, redunant safety systems’ when it comes to school fire. The floor tiles, the carpet, the chairs, the doors, the paint the wall boards, the desks, the ceiling tiles have only one requirement for your school: That they are FIRE resistant / fire proof.
How many kids have been killed or injured in a school fire in the US in the last 50+ years? NONE ZERO ZILCH NADA. Yet we still have sprinkler systems, fire drills, fire safety awareness…
And howmany children killed or injured in school violence each year? At the time 1999 was an All time record with 35 killed and A QUARTER OF A MILLION INJURED IN SCHOOL VIOLENCE. How many killed / injured in School fire that year? Zero
But wasn’t that the year of Columbine? Yes. So the stastic is skewed? Negative Ghost Rider. 2004 was a new record: 48 killed and still HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS INJURED in SCHOOL VIOLENCE. How many killed / injured in school fire that year? Zero
I could go on and on but I’ll leave it to the experts. Here’s two articles that detail our DENIAL and a soultion: ret. Lt. Col. Dave Grossman is the world’s leading expert in the phychology of human to human agression, i.e. Combat, which is EXACTLY what is happening in our schools: war.
policeone.com/active-shooter/articles/2058168-Active-shooters-in-schools-The-enemy-is-denial/
policeone.com/active-shooter/articles/6067353-Newtown-shooting-Why-Minutemen-can-protect-against-active-shooters/
GOD HELP US ALL!
Of course one cannot have a mass “shooting” with water. But there have been quite a few murderous mass drownings (some drown five of their kids at once, dunno your criteria for “mass”) which have effected children disproprtionally (note mass shootings have not done this) so sicne you keep using “the CHILDREN” as a soapbox, it is correct for me to ask your regulatory scheme for this liquid danger.
“Provide”? No. Not inhibit their right to do so? Yep.Then according to your argument, they have a right to bear arms. Should we provide them one right away?
May I one day develop your unparalleled rhetorical skills via ample use of
.Mass drownings, no sources, not one fact, idea, or iota of reality? Ironic.Of course one cannot have a mass “shooting” with water. But there have been quite a few murderous mass drownings (some drown five of their kids at once, dunno your criteria for “mass”) which have effected children disproprtionally (note mass shootings have not done this) so sicne you keep using “the CHILDREN” as a soapbox, it is correct for me to ask your regulatory scheme for this liquid danger.
“Provide”? No. Not inhibit their right to do so? Yep.
May I one day develop your unparalleled rhetorical skills via ample use of
You have not one fact, idea, or iota of reality on your side, why do you persist in peddling this nonsensical “gun control”?
To be put on more member’s ignore list?May I one day develop your unparalleled rhetorical skills via ample use of
You have not one fact, idea, or iota of reality on your side, why do you persist in peddling this nonsensical “gun control”?
You are really going to pretend to be this obtuse? You never heard of Andrea Yates? Drove her 5 kids into a lake killing them all in Texas? or the other instances of this happening?Mass drownings, no sources, not one fact, idea, or iota of reality? Ironic.
How many less kids would have died if Sandy Hook was not a “Gun Free Zone”, like some of the elementary schools in Texas, where teachers are allowed and encouraged to be armed?