# Outside the Box > Philosophy and Debate >  >  Guns in Schools

## WineKitty

So I saw a thread on another forum that I am amazed anyone could possibly be in support of.   Armed guards at EVERY school in America?

I don't think anyone has thought through the cost of this rather ambitious endeavor.

Or the fact that Virgina Tech had armed cops on campus and it DID NOT stop the murders that happened.  I wonder how many people were armed at Ft. Hood, which is the biggest military installation IN THE WORLD...yet 13 people lost their lives in that shooting and 29 were wounded.

Also, if a shooter KNOWS there is an armed cop of some kind, guess who is going to get shot first?

I find it hilarious that those who carry on about a "police state" or "nanny state" come crying to the government in time of need.  For those that go on about "smaller government" yet seem to want to increase it when it's convenient for them.

Maybe we ought to just equip all kids attending schools with guns.  We could get cute lil' pink ones for kindergarten girls.  As they get older, they can get a higher power gun and have their favorite band on it.  We could even get covers for them like we have for phones.  And so once we have all the kids armed, and all the teachers armed, nothing bad will ever happen again, right????   ::  :Eyebrow: 

As stated in an earlier thread THE ANSWERS to this are not so simplistic.  Oh...if ONLY!!!!

----------


## Misty

Teacher should have guns but not visible for kids to see, to protect them. other then that no guns should be allowed.

----------


## WineKitty

Why would a teacher have a gun?  Where would it be kept?  And is it really another thing to lay on the already underpaid teachers, besides the role of mentor, educator, babysitter, social worker etc?  What kind of training would a teacher have to have?  What if the shooter got in and shot up kids regardless of the teacher having a gun....would it then be the teacher's fault for not properly "protecting" the kids?  Would there be legal grounds to sue?  Would teachers get a raise for their sharpshooting training and skills?

----------


## Fallen18

I didn't even read this whole thing (sorry) but I think ALL teachers having guns has got to be the stupidest thing I've ever heard of. "Sure lets fix the gun problem.....with more guns" perfectly logical. You're going to have teachers being irresponsible loosing them kids finding them etc. it's just not a good thing to have in a school environment and it doesn't solve the problem.

----------


## pam

It's insane. It really is.

It's a simplistic, paranoid, reactive, non-thought-out "solution" in the wake of another tragedy.

Did everyone forget about the statistic that if you have a gun around (in your house), your chances of dying by a gun go way the hell up? There is no way I would send my kid to a school KNOWING there are guns there. 

Also how are teachers supposed to be "on guard" while they are also teaching? That is like combining 2 completely different full time professions into one person. Who wants that responsibility? 

And who's going to guard everyone on the busride home when the bus turns the corner and is hijacked by a student already on the bus.  or non-student who shoves their way onto the bus?

What about at the local parks or sports fields? The are wide open, so what's to stop anyone from doing a mass shooting right out in the open? 

What about elderly homes, and hospitals, and malls, and national sports arenas, etc? Wouldn't we have to guard them too?

growl.....I really think we need to focus on what kind of a society do we want to live in? A peaceful open one, or a paranoid wild west one. or what? The thing is------NO MATTER WHICH ONE YOU PICK, THERE WILL ALWAYS BE CRIME. (altho there are ways to try to decrease it, we cannot prevent it and stop it from happening altogether.) I live in one where I go places and don't constantly worry about being shot everyday of my life. And that's how I want it to stay.

----------


## bigdaddy

let teachers who want to carry, carry. I carry in my waistband. Also have armed plain clothes security.

----------


## WineKitty

Again having a teacher carry brings about a myriad of questions.   What are the answers to them?  It's not a matter of saying "if they want to carry they can carry".  See my post above, too lazy to retype the list of questions.

----------


## T-Bone

making it mandatory for teachers to carry guns seems pretty stupid but if those teacher want to carry, they should indeed be allowed to.





> Again having a teacher carry brings about a myriad of questions.   What are the answers to them?  It's not a matter of saying "if they want to carry they can carry".  See my post above, too lazy to retype the list of questions.



I don't think giving pink guns to kindergarten children was a question or something that was meant to be taken seriously, so that doesn't need to be addressed. I really only see one question so ill answer it. 





> Also, if a shooter KNOWS there is an armed cop of some kind, guess who is going to get shot first?



Most likely an UNARMED person, not a cop or armed teacher. You don't honestly think criminals seek out the toughest targets first, do you?

----------


## WineKitty

So do you honestly think that if you had the job of "guarding" a school you would be like a secret service agent, eyes constantly darting around for the smallest sign of foul play?  Or do you think for most schools it would be a job that bored you to tears and you very well could be caught "OFF GUARD".  The fact is this isn't going to happen at most schools.  

And there were very many "REAL" questions there (and I am adding a few too).  

Where would the gun be kept?  What kind of liability would the school face if one of the kids got a hold of it.  Is the teacher supposed to wear it holster style or is in a lockbox somewhere?

Where are teachers supposed to get the necessary training to handle a weapon in a mass shooting situation and who is paying for it?  Who is providing the gun?  We cannot even afford, according to conservatives, to continue the WIC program to give milk and cereal to poor children under 5.  Where is the funding for this coming from?

Would there be legal grounds to sue the school, the school district or the teacher personally if a shooter DID get in and shot up kids regardless of the gun being around anyway?  Shouldn't the teacher, now armed, been able to have prevented any deaths in their classroom?  

Shouldn't underpaid teachers be paid more for having to have sharpshooting skills?

And why does anyone think having someone armed will prevent this from happening again?  Why are MORE guns the answer?  Again, how much weaponry was at Ft. Hood during that massacre?  That is the largest military installation in the world, pretty sure there was some heavy duty weapons around.  

And what about V Tech?  Two armed cops on campus at the time, yet over 30 died.

The Columbine Cop fired four shots at Harris but missed.  Another cop was there in minutes, and also fired and missed.

My point is that arming teachers is not the answer.  A lot of campuses have armed cops already yet it hasn't solved the problem.  Because it keeps happening.

----------


## T-Bone

> So do you honestly think that if you had the job of "guarding" a school you would be like a secret service agent, eyes constantly darting around for the smallest sign of foul play?



If you're a guard only, and that's what you're specifically getting paid for, you should do your job yes. I wouldn't expect a teacher to play 007 and teach at the same time. An armed teacher is pretty much only good for if a intruder enters that classroom, even then they probably wouldn't be very effective unless they're a Clint Eastwood character.





> Where would the gun be kept?  What kind of liability would the school face if one of the kids got a hold of it.  Is the teacher supposed to wear it holster style or is in a lockbox somewhere?



They should be kept on the teacher, not in a lockbox where it is useless or in desk where children can get it. Any liability should rest on the teacher who is carrying, not the school. It should be the teachers decision whether they're armed or not.





> Where are teachers supposed to get the necessary training to handle a weapon in a mass shooting situation and who is paying for it?  Who is providing the gun?  We cannot even afford, according to conservatives, to continue the WIC program to give milk and cereal to poor children under 5.  Where is the funding for this coming from?



Training courses should be up to the teacher to pay for, since i don't think it should be mandatory to carry a firearm to begin with. They provide their own gun as well.





> Would there be legal grounds to sue the school, the school district or the teacher personally if a shooter DID get in and shot up kids regardless of the gun being around anyway?  Shouldn't the teacher, now armed, been able to have prevented any deaths in their classroom?



That's silly, of course not.




> Shouldn't underpaid teachers be paid more for having to have sharpshooting skills?



No.




> And why does anyone think having someone armed will prevent this from happening again?  Why are MORE guns the answer?  Again, how much weaponry was at Ft. Hood during that massacre?  That is the largest military installation in the world, pretty sure there was some heavy duty weapons around.  
> 
> And what about V Tech?  Two armed cops on campus at the time, yet over 30 died.
> 
> The Columbine Cop fired four shots at Harris but missed.  Another cop was there in minutes, and also fired and missed.
> 
> My point is that arming teachers is not the answer.  A lot of campuses have armed cops already yet it hasn't solved the problem.  Because it keeps happening.



I don't think anyone thinks it would never happen again. It could deter a shooting, sure. I believe a burglary would be less likely to break into someones house knowing that the home owner is not only there, but armed.

Anyways, they shouldn't necessary arm every teacher. Just allow them to carry a gun if they choose to.

----------


## EnjoyLife

We used to have a few police officers around our schools, inside around the front door. It was only in the high school. and I know that is extreme and they only have those types of enforcements in higher crime related area's. I don't think teaches should have guns, but at the very least some sort of protections for a disaster like this.

----------


## WineKitty

GH...you are seriously suggesting that teachers walk around with holstered guns in classrooms with small children in?

"Training courses should up to the teacher to pay for..."  Teachers aren't exactly highly paid and also cannot even get tax credits for buying supplies for there own classrooms.  Teachers are already social workers, babysitters, instructors, referee's etc.  I don't think they should have to worry about being a guard as well.

And if you add a armed security guard at every school, again, where is the funding coming from?  We are talking PUBLIC schools here, not expensive private schools that charge tens of thousands a year for the privileged of attending.

How is liabilty a "silly" issue?  Someone successfully sued McDonalds for coffee being hot.  You cannot be suggesting that this couldn't be an issue?

----------


## WineKitty

There were multiple lawsuits following Columbine and Virginia Tech.  

And again I will mention Ft. Hood.  Plenty of security there, don't 'cha think?

----------


## T-Bone

> GH...you are seriously suggesting that teachers walk around with holstered guns in classrooms with small children in?



 If they choose to, sure. If the parents of these children fear the teacher bringing out his/her weapon to pass around for show and tell, they can enroll their child elsewhere. 





> "Training courses should up to the teacher to pay for..."  Teachers aren't exactly highly paid and also cannot even get tax credits for buying supplies for there own classrooms.  Teachers are already social workers, babysitters, instructors, referee's etc.  I don't think they should have to worry about being a guard as well.



I'm not suggesting they should HAVE to worry about it. That's why i think it should be optional based on the teachers concerns, finances being one of the concerns i'm sure.





> And if you add a armed security guard at every school, again, where is the funding coming from?  We are talking PUBLIC schools here, not expensive private schools that charge tens of thousands a year for the privileged of attending.



 A bake sale? Who knows...budgets can be cut somewhere if people feel the safety of these little angelic creatures known as children is so important.





> How is liabilty a "silly" issue?  Someone successfully sued McDonalds for coffee being hot.  You cannot be suggesting that this couldn't be an issue?



Police officers are society's armed guards. Do you see the police being sued for old ladies being mugged? If a lawsuit were to happen, do you find it LIKELY that the police would lose this case? Of course you don't, because it is what? Silly.

----------


## WineKitty

> If they choose to, sure. If the parents of these children fear the teacher bringing out his/her weapon to pass around for show and tell, they can enroll their child elsewhere.



Nope, sorry it doesn't work like that.  There are such things as "districts" based on where you live, you know that.  And even if you were able to opt out, it would create havoc amongst schools and teacher to student ratios and such if everyone just "picked" what school in any given city that they would want there child to attend.






> I'm not suggesting they should HAVE to worry about it. That's why i think it should be optional based on the teachers concerns, finances being one of the concerns i'm sure.



I can assure you the average teacher doesn't have funds for this.  Because, of course, wouldn't parents demand the teacher have certain credentials, assuring them they know how to handle a weapon?  There would have to be SOME kind of protocol would there not?






> A bake sale? Who knows...budgets can be cut somewhere if people feel the safety of these little angelic creatures known as children is so important.



Oh, come on, T, now who is being silly?  Education is already slashed down to the bare bones--if you want to take it out of the military budget that is fine with me.  :;):   And when it is YOUR kid, yeah, it is an angelic little creature.  If I had it all to do again, I might just homeschool my kid.  But I didn't have that option back in the day.






> Police officers are society's armed guards. Do you see the police being sued for old ladies being mugged? If a lawsuit were to happen, do you find it LIKELY that the police would lose this case? Of course you don't, because it is what? Silly.



So, what of the lawsuits that have followed mass shootings before and been successfully won.  I am willing to bet the losing end of that lawsuit didn't find it "silly."

----------


## T-Bone

> Nope, sorry it doesn't work like that.  There are such things as "districts" based on where you live, you know that.  And even if you were able to opt out, it would create havoc amongst schools and teacher to student ratios and such if everyone just "picked" what school in any given city that they would want there child to attend.



Ok just don't include the option of opting out. Force people to move to a different district if it's that important to them. Send their kids to private schools, or home school them as you mentioned. I wouldn't want the safety of my child to be compromised by paranoid people who fear that a gang of kindergarten children is gonna overpower an adult to get his/her concealed weapon (which they shouldn't even know about) and go on a killing spree.





> I can assure you the average teacher doesn't have funds for this.  Because, of course, wouldn't parents demand the teacher have certain credentials, assuring them they know how to handle a weapon?  There would have to be SOME kind of protocol would there not?



Fine, they don't have the funds, just don't do it. Leave all criminal disposal duties up the cop that roams the halls if they want(if there is one)? I don't care.





> Oh, come on, T, now who is being silly?  Education is already slashed down to the bare bones--*if you want to take it out of the military budget that is fine with me. *  And when it is YOUR kid, yeah, it is an angelic little creature.  If I had it all to do again, I might just homeschool my kid.  But I didn't have that option back in the day.



Sounds great to me too! Armed security (not teachers) sounds like a plan to put that money to use.





> So, what of the lawsuits that have followed mass shootings before and been successfully won.  I am willing to bet the losing end of that lawsuit didn't find it "silly."



Not familiar with these cases, or the details. You'll have to fill me in on those more than you have.

----------


## bigdaddy

> Why would a teacher have a gun?  Where would it be kept?  And is it really another thing to lay on the already underpaid teachers, besides the role of mentor, educator, babysitter, social worker etc?  What kind of training would a teacher have to have?  What if the shooter got in and shot up kids regardless of the teacher having a gun....would it then be the teacher's fault for not properly "protecting" the kids?  Would there be legal grounds to sue?  Would teachers get a raise for their sharpshooting training and skills?



To protect the kids. In their waistband covered by their shirt. Teachers make 60-70k a year and only work a total of 3 months on 2 months off so they are OVER paid and even get perks like weekends off. Like I said, there's alot of teachers who are into firearms and shooting, let those who wanna carry, carry.

----------


## bigdaddy

> So do you honestly think that if you had the job of "guarding" a school you would be like a secret service agent, eyes constantly darting around for the smallest sign of foul play?  Or do you think for most schools it would be a job that bored you to tears and you very well could be caught "OFF GUARD".  The fact is this isn't going to happen at most schools.  
> 
> And there were very many "REAL" questions there (and I am adding a few too).  
> 
> Where would the gun be kept?  What kind of liability would the school face if one of the kids got a hold of it.  Is the teacher supposed to wear it holster style or is in a lockbox somewhere?
> 
> Where are teachers supposed to get the necessary training to handle a weapon in a mass shooting situation and who is paying for it?  Who is providing the gun?  We cannot even afford, according to conservatives, to continue the WIC program to give milk and cereal to poor children under 5.  Where is the funding for this coming from?
> 
> Would there be legal grounds to sue the school, the school district or the teacher personally if a shooter DID get in and shot up kids regardless of the gun being around anyway?  Shouldn't the teacher, now armed, been able to have prevented any deaths in their classroom?  
> ...



They were probably all disarmed while on base in the U.S. since it's not a warzone. I suggest teachers take a pay cut and hire armed security guards if they can't pay for their own gun or training with their all ready high salary.

----------


## WintersTale

It's unnecessary to have a gun. That should be common sense.

If we didn't hand off guns to lunatics, we wouldn't feel the need to _arm_ anyone...

----------


## T-Bone

> It's unnecessary to have a gun. That should be common sense.
> 
> If we didn't hand off guns to lunatics, we wouldn't feel the need to _arm_ anyone...



I'm not trying to start trouble man but these types of comments are really testing my patience. Where do you even get the idea that people are selling guns to people they _know_ are lunatics? They're not. Or that precautions that our government has set in place aren't being taken already? They ARE.

Having a gun is not necessary huh? Do you know martial arts? Are you able to stop someone else's bullet with that martial arts? Are you a master with knives or something? Or does the idea of someone violating your rights possibly killing you in your own home just sound like fun to you? Your opinion isn't a common one, and i'm glad it isn't. Most people don't enjoy being victims.

----------


## Trendsetter

> To protect the kids. In their waistband covered by their shirt. Teachers make 60-70k a year and only work a total of 3 months on 2 months off so they are OVER paid and even get perks like weekends off. Like I said, there's alot of teachers who are into firearms and shooting, let those who wanna carry, carry.



Teachers possessing guns on school property is just crazy. 

Secondly, not many teachers make 60-70k per year except the very experienced ones.

----------


## WineKitty

Post V-Tech Lawsuit Links:

http://articles.cnn.com/2012-03-14/j...?_s=PM:JUSTICE

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...mxET_blog.html

Columbine:

http://www.nytimes.com/2001/04/20/us...-lawsuits.html

Want more....google more.

The problem is that not everyone has the luxury of sending their kids to private school or homeschooling them.  Most households require BOTH parents to work.  I was a single parent and there is no way I could afford private school and due to working, homeschooling wasnt an option.  There are millions of families that have more limited options.  Not everyone can afford to spend tens of thousands a year on private school or not work and homeschool.

Although there are a great many schools that have "campus cops" the suggestion has been made post-Sandy Hook that an armed guard of some kind should be installed at EVERY school in America.  That is quite an ambitious goal and an unrealistic one as well.   I don't see it as answer and you say you don't care.  I think if people actually want that then it has to come from the bloated military budget which needs to be cut down to size anyway.  It should fall under domestic terrorism which is exactly what it is.  


As for "Big Daddy"'s remark about teachers taking a pay cut---what on earth are you talking about?  Teachers hardly make anything anyway.  The reported 60 or 70 usually falls in areas like NY or SF where that is a pittance compared to the cost of living.  Where I live teachers make as low as 38,500 starting and a median of 44,400.  Hardly living the good life.  And now you want them to be armed guards too?  That is just ludicrous.  And while you dismiss Ft. Hood, the fact is there was more weaponry there, there are ALWAYS armed guards on duty (haven't you ever been on a base) and with all that it still didn't stop it.

MORE GUNS ISN'T THE ANSWER. 

Mind you I am not ANTI GUN though.  A rational, law abiding citizen shouldn't be denied the right to a gun because of nutjobs.  But arming classrooms is just not the answer and could potentially cause more problems than it solves.

----------


## pam

> .....
> MORE GUNS ISN'T THE ANSWER. 
> 
> Mind you I am not ANTI GUN though.  A rational, law abiding citizen shouldn't be denied the right to a gun because of nutjobs.  *But arming classrooms is just not the answer and could potentially cause more problems than it solves.*



Go Winekitty! (I'm too lazy to join in to the argument and everyone must have skipped over my post above anyway).

To the bold above, not "could" but "will" cause more problems. It's just a matter of time before innocent people, probably kids again, get killed with the gun that was supposed to protect them....then what will people want to do to fix THAT one? 

I like your posts.  :Wave: 

And I don't think your view is uncommon at all.

----------


## Dill

I don't think arming teachers is the solution.  They just have to have increased security and metal detectors.   A lot of American inner city schools have it that way anyway to curb gang violence.  

 It's sad, but this is an increasingly unsafe world.

----------


## bigdaddy

I personally don't care about arming teachers or not. I care because you liberal gun grabbers want to ban all guns.

----------


## Trendsetter

> I personally don't care about arming teachers or not. I care because you liberal gun grabbers want to ban all guns.



Lol, not all dems are anti gun. They just shouldn't be in the wrong hands or in inappropriate situations such as classrooms.

----------


## WineKitty

> I personally don't care about arming teachers or not. I care because you liberal gun grabbers want to ban all guns.



Blanket and erroneous statement.  Please provide evidence to support this erroneous statement.  My guess:  You can't.

----------


## WineKitty

> Go Winekitty! (I'm too lazy to join in to the argument and everyone must have skipped over my post above anyway).
> 
> To the bold above, not "could" but "will" cause more problems. It's just a matter of time before innocent people, probably kids again, get killed with the gun that was supposed to protect them....then what will people want to do to fix THAT one? 
> 
> I like your posts. 
> 
> 
> And I don't think your view is uncommon at all.




Thank you very much and your avatar is making me hungry!!  ::):

----------


## peace

More guns are not the answer, though in a country that is so entwined in  gun culture it is hard to know what the answer is , if there is in fact a solution to be made.

----------


## WintersTale

Homeschooling isn't the cure, because you are just as likely to be shot in a mall, while shopping, as you are when you sitting in a school.

The problem is guns. And as long as people stick their fingers in their ears and go "lalalala" when they are faced with the problem OF guns, we will continue having these mass shooting sprees.

----------


## T-Bone

I wish anti-gun people would put their heads together and think of a reasonable solution to gun crime (since banning guns isn't gonna happen and is a stupid idea). Getting tired of people saying this "guns are the problem" nonsense over and over again when they KNOW it isn't. It's like they're "trolling" or something since they never contribute much of an opinion on the topic. and i don't make that accusation often. I'm convinced they are trolling actually. Surely they're not that naive. If they are, i feel bad not only for them, but the people around them. Pretty depressing stuff. If i were religious, i'd pray for them.

----------


## WintersTale

Hey...I know! Let's have more guns! Because more people need to be killed, every day! 

Hand them off to children, let them kill each other! If a teacher tries to shoot one of them, to protect another one, and gets shot in the process, even better!

What a reasonable solution!

----------


## T-Bone

> Hey...I know! Let's have more guns! Because more people need to be killed, every day! 
> 
> Hand them off to children, let them kill each other! If a teacher tries to shoot one of them, to protect another one, and gets shot in the process, even better!
> 
> What a reasonable solution!



Why is it the anti-gun people who always make goofy comments about giving guns to children? Surely you're not that irresponsible? Do you know how insane that sounds? How can you even try to prove a point with statements like that? That is why the anti-gun argument never gets very far.

"more people need to be killed everyday" seriously? i'm starting to think this isnt even sarcasm on your part.

----------


## WintersTale

> Why is it the anti-gun people who always make goofy comments about giving guns to children? Surely you're not that irresponsible? Do you know how insane that sounds? How can you even try to prove a point with statements like that? That is why the anti-gun argument never gets very far.
> 
> "more people need to be killed everyday" seriously? i'm starting to think this isnt even sarcasm on your part.



It IS sarcasm, although what is scary is that YOU aren't being sarcastic.

And, actually, my niece's grandfather gave her a gun after the shooting, to protect herself. My niece is 10. Hardly old enough to handle a gun, or be able to shoot without killing themselves or someone else. 

And what is the point of a gun? To shoot and kill. Why does anybody need something like that, unless they are a hunter, in war, or a police officer?

----------


## T-Bone

> It IS sarcasm, although what is scary is that YOU aren't being sarcastic.
> 
> And, actually, my niece's grandfather gave her a gun after the shooting, to protect herself. My niece is 10. Hardly old enough to handle a gun, or be able to shoot without killing themselves or someone else. 
> 
> *And what is the point of a gun? To shoot and kill. Why does anybody need something like that, unless they are a hunter, in war, or a police officer?*



This question has been answer time and time again. Self defense. That's the only reason you need, and the only reason that matters. Using sarcasm to suggest that your stance on guns is morally correct and that everyone  else should also be willing victims isn't doing anything for you guys. Being weak and helpless is not a desirable thing to _most_ people...i don't understand why that would be your preferred position. 

I don't believe your story about your niece receiving a gun at age 10 from he grandfather. I think some people would make up any story they could to try to prove a point, or make opposing opinions look bad. Especially _while_ debating on the topic. It seems to me you would have done something about it if your nieces life was in some kind of danger.

----------


## WintersTale

> I don't believe your story



If you knew her grandfather, you would believe it.

----------


## T-Bone

> If you knew her grandfather, you would believe it.



Well he doesn't sound like a very intelligent man. 

But anyways Winterstale, on the subject of self-defense and guns.. why do you like the idea of being a victim? You question your ability to use a gun? Don't trust yourself with one?  Don't care about your life or the lives of others around you? Or is it a masochistic thing or something?

----------


## WineKitty

I hope I haven't given the impression that I support a gun ban; it's been a while since I posted in this thread so I don't remember and am too lazy/dont have time to backtrack right now.

Here is something I posted on FB tonight:

The problem I have with this pic is that it is trying to diminish the true numbers of gun crime (and takes a shot at Obamacare for no apparent reason). There is no need for that and it immediately creates division. We need a true rational conversation without extremism. Because the problems of violence in our country cannot be legislated away with something as simplistic as a "gun ban" of any kind. One would think that a even a quick look at history would reveal the success of "banning" in our nation and how poorly that has worked. Since the tragedy in Newtown, there has been such extremism on both sides--either calling for an all out gun ban or on the other side, arming everyone. Rather, as a nation, we need to take a look at what causes VIOLENCE (and yes that includes those pesky hammers etc mentioned in the pic) as a whole rather than looking at the weaponry of choice....be it a handgun, assault rifle, knife or hammer. The problem of violence in this nation is far more convoluted than the weaponry used. I strongly support the right to have guns but with that said, the only thing I would do as far as legislation goes is close the gun show loop hole. Since I have to go through an interview, credit check, background check etc to get a job, I don't find it unreasonable to have to get a background check to own a gun. But, again, the root causes of violence in this country need to be dealt with. And that seems to be what is truly missing in the nationwide "gun" debate.

----------


## WineKitty

1150_442030692533228_1015246576_n.jpgOh and here is the pic:

----------


## pam

I choose not to have guns around me. I have personal reasons for it that I'm not going to go into here, but it's a conscious choice for me. But, that doesn't automatically make me have a "victim" mentality. I don't see myself as a victim or wanting to be one, or as weak and helpless either. Just because i don't arm myself, doesn't mean I'm weak. I just see it as a lifestyle choice. But if I am a victim of crime, does that mean it was my fault I was because I wasn't "prepared" with arms? No, it just means I didn't have a gun on me. 

My apt was robbed several times 20 yrs ago and luckily I was never home when it happened. The last time they actually cut a hole right thru the wall from the fire escape hallway--guess locked doors and windows don't really work, lol. I came home and saw a gaping hole in the wall and stuff moved around and missing. In the meantime of getting the wall fixed, I sat there looking at it, wishing I had a gun. I was mad and felt invaded (in a way). Like how dare someone just come into MY space and take MY stuff! But if I had been home, and had a gun, would I really have wanted to possibly kill someone over a TV, microwave, skateboard, strobe light, and some costume jewelry? No. But I'm also told that the break-in wouldn't have happened if I was at home anyway. 

I had talked to my friend who was a retired cop at the time about getting a gun and he said "If you aim it, you better shoot it." Well, I instantly dropped the idea because I just can't do that. He also said if I had a gun in my hand, the chance of getting killed was higher because they would also be more likely to shoot me (in their "self-defense"). I decided I'll take my chances without a gun. But I don't see that as me automatically being categorized as a "willing victim". It's bad enough my father's response to the robbery was "Well, you wanted to live there!" (in the city) like I was asking for it! So I'm used to this blame the crime victim for what the criminal did thing. But I don't agree with it at all.

So i am personally anti-gun, within my *own* life. But *not* for everyone *else*.* I would like large magazines and automatic weapons* (that only the military should have) *to be banned*. That's all. Well, and the gun show loop holes to be wiped out. Why make it easier for killers? 

My boyfriend told me the other day that you need a permit to have a pistol, but not for those AR-whatevers....THAT's REALLY fukced up, lol.

----------


## pam

> 1150_442030692533228_1015246576_n.jpgOh and here is the pic:



Lol, that's why I stay away from doctors as much as I can, too.

----------


## WintersTale

I will answer his questions, even though they were kind of insulting.

I don't question my ability to use a gun. I HAVE used a gun. I don't question the value of a gun, because they DO have value. In the hands of someone enforcing the law.

The problem here is that, every single shooting spree ever, has resulted from legally obtained firearms. Not illegal firearms. That's where the problem lies. Adam Lanza wasn't turned away from purchasing a gun; he had them, in his home, all thanks to his dear old mother. This is where the problem lies, keeping guns out of the hands of people who should not have them, not people who do have them.

And as far as it being a masochistic thing, I'm not compensating for the size of my penis here. I am pleased with the size, length, girth, or whatever of my dick. However, people who get big guns or flashy cars are usually trying to compensate for the lack of something in their pants.

----------


## T-Bone

> I will answer his questions, even though they were kind of insulting.
> 
> I don't question my ability to use a gun. I HAVE used a gun. I don't question the value of a gun, because they DO have value. In the hands of someone enforcing the law.
> 
> The problem here is that, every single shooting spree ever, has resulted from legally obtained firearms. Not illegal firearms. That's where the problem lies. Adam Lanza wasn't turned away from purchasing a gun; he had them, in his home, all thanks to his dear old mother. This is where the problem lies, keeping guns out of the hands of people who should not have them, not people who do have them.
> 
> And as far as it being a masochistic thing, I'm not compensating for the size of my penis here. I am pleased with the size, length, girth, or whatever of my dick. However, people who get big guns or flashy cars are usually trying to compensate for the lack of something in their pants.



So if a homeowners gun saves someones life during a home invasion that weapon has no value because it wasn't used by law enforcement? Wow, you might as well tell the homeowner his/her life has no value too while you're at it. It would be the same thing. 

My question wasn't meant to be insulting but you are the sensitive type i guess. Masochism has nothing to do with penises i don't think. Well i suppose it COULD but that wasn't the road i wanted to go down personally so i won't join you in that discussion. Masochists just enjoy having pain inflicted on them. They enjoy being victims. That seems to explain why people would be against guns for self defense. That's my theory anyways and i'm sticking to it because it makes the most sense.

I really don't know about the whole compensation thing. I don't go asking people about their equipment or trying to sneak a peek, but i'm not quite sure how else you'd go about finding something like that out. It doesn't sound very logical though. Some people just like nice things.

----------


## WintersTale

I'm not offended at anything you're saying, except the fact that you think I'm stupid. 

I'm not stupid. I just have different beliefs than you. I don't believe guns belong in the hands of civilians.

----------


## Prodigy

We had metal detectors at my school as well as cameras in every hall with about 20~ security guards in that bitch. Still had some kid sneak a gun in once, lol.

----------


## WintersTale

> We had metal detectors at my school as well as cameras in every hall with about 20~ security guards in that bitch. Still had some kid sneak a gun in once, lol.



Same here. After Columbine, there was a bomb threat at my school.

----------


## T-Bone

> I'm not offended at anything you're saying, except the fact that you think I'm stupid. 
> 
> I'm not stupid. I just have different beliefs than you. I don't believe guns belong in the hands of civilians.



Oh yea, we have different opinions alright. You don't think people should be able to defend themselves in their own homes, i do. If guns were illegal and someone is murdered in their own home (possibly even someone you love) your stance on the issue pretty much says "sorry, but that's just the way the cookie crumbles". That's cold man.

----------


## UltraShy

> making it mandatory for teachers to carry guns seems pretty stupid but if those teacher want to carry, they should indeed be allowed to.



What sane teacher is going to carry a gun given the massive legal liability that comes with doing so?  Imagine if you were a teacher and the next Adam Lanza walks into your school and starts shooting.  He's in a classroom full of kids.  He doesn't have to worry about where his shots go.  He can simply spray the room with bullets.  You, on the other hand, have to make the perfect shot(s).  You have to do what even a SWAT team or military special forces would be hard pressed to do.  You have to take him down without any collateral damage.  How likely is that?

Remember last fall at the Empire State Building when two NYPD cops fired 16 rounds to take down one man armed with a .45 pistol?  This was just one guy with one very ordinary handgun and he wasn't wearing any body armor and they were shooting him from a distance of only 8 feet.  These cops ended up hitting 9 other people in the process.  I think 3 were direct hits to others, with the rest being ricochets.

You can expect a lawsuit to be filed against you if any of your shots miss and hit a kid & you can expect that lawsuit to ask for every last cent you have and ever will have.

Let's say you manage to stop him with several well-placed shots, vastly outperforming NYPD.  But one of your shots hits & kills little Suzy who was standing behind him.  Your shot hit Mr. Bad Guy, but it over-penetrated and hit her in the head.  You saved all the other kids in the room, so you're a great hero indeed, but you'll also be a bankrupt hero who'll be spending years trying to defend yourself from the lawsuit sure to come from Suzy's family.

Only police & military get a free pass on collateral damage.  As a mere civilian, you're held to a higher standard.  You have to achieve perfection, an impossible standard.

----------


## T-Bone

> What sane teacher is going to carry a gun given the massive legal liability that comes with doing so?



Good point. No stranger's kid is worth a lawsuit imo. Mr Bad guy could just hold little Suzy up to his chest as a human shield and blast everyone anyways.

----------

