Anyone who blows off the armed personnel idea really interested in saving lives. I would love to see this, all the nay sayers participate in the simulations that many companies offer to police and military with laser and airlift type of weapons. Let them be the active shooter in the simulation and set up a similar environment to this last shooting and Sandy Hook. Run it 5 times with no armed personnel, and 5 times with a guard with an AR15 hidden near all enter points. Then add a couple teachers, not forced but voluntarily would want to have a weapon in a fingerprint lock box in a desk. If the results don't show a huge increase in lives saved, not to mention the deterrent factor i will sell my AR and join the left side who thinks arming properly is not going to work.
School/Mass shootings what's the answer?
- Thread starter Lawnboy
- Start date
You really didn't listen to anything or didn't comprehend him. Good grief. Buzz is right, stock up on body bags
Pat, I commend you, in a few sentences, you provided something for a solution. The gov spoke for 5 or 6 minutes and I heard nothing. Throw out an idea for cripes sakes.
Craig, one post was about the problem, one was about a fast acting solution. 2 posts, 2 sub topics. The problem post is long term solution, the solution post is what to do right fricking now. All I see and others I work with see is voter referendums to add millions to taxes for giant gyms, football fields, locker rooms, pools, theaters and what not for schools. Let's spend money where needed to protect our kids.
Last edited:
dannyb278
Active member
- Joined
- Aug 4, 2015
- Messages
- 575
You sound very much like the folks a whole bunch of us went overseas to fight for the last 15 years. Using religion as a guiding compass over the last 1000 years has worked really well for them.
In a lot of ways, you have been getting what you wanted for the last 30 years or so, which was about the time one of our political parties sold itself to the religious-right, and has pretty much been shaping policy since.
Sorry progress backward to 1958 has been so slow, but don't fret Marty McFly, the current administration more than wants to hop in that garbage powered Delorean right next to you. Before you know it we will be right back in 1958, where Ms. Parks new her place was on the back of the bus, the good Christian men that lynched the Till boy can be acquitted and writers, artists and (gasp!) homosexuals can be labeled commies and made enemies of the people. Good times.
You're right though, there may have been a bit more Jesus in the water in 1958, and a complete absence of mass shootings in schools with AR-15's type rifles, though I would counter that is less about god and more about the fact that the M14 wasn't around until 1961 and M16 A1 didn't roll out until 1968. About the closest thing a young guy had to shoot up his schoolmates at a high rate of speed with was the Thompson submachine gun, but that had pretty much been regulated out of civilians hands in 1934 with the National Firearms Act. Shockingly enough, mass death by Tommy gun plummeted after that, unless of course you were a group of Japanese soldiers in Burma and on the receiving end of a gun that was clearly meant for the military and not for civilians.
Last edited:
What's funny is what you call censorship most call proper parenting. Would you let your child watch porn?or is that censorship as well?
Last edited:
Cerebral Stalker
Active member
As soon as you take away someone's right to protect themself, bad things happen. Hence the second amendment. Our founding fathers knew what they were talking about.
Nope you can't. But it would be hard to enforce.
Cerebral Stalker
Active member
Banning semi-auto weapons is not the answer. Actually, if these shooters used shotguns they would be more effective. I'd rather see a guy with a semiauto show up at a school than a guy with a shotgun. A guy with a shotgun can mow down and injure entire groups of people with one shot. The media always hypes the semiauto AR's up though, so that's what people use. Not only is banning semi-autos not he answer, it's not an option. Have some respect for the Constitution. The best option is to arm individuals in the schools. And it's got to be more than one or two people. It needs to be where these guys don't stand a chance for 2 minutes with this crap.
Gut Shot
Well-known member
"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
I think your definition of those words differs significantly from mine.
Truth. Well said, Pat.
I believe the administration is on the right path regarding ways to reduce such tragic incidents in the future. It is fantastic to see actual action vs the entrenched partisan gamesmenship regarding the artificial intelligence of firearms shooting people.
There are many instructors that have the ability and the desire to protect his/her children with a firearm than to hope the active shooter does not open that classroom door...
There are many instructors that have the ability and the desire to protect his/her children with a firearm than to hope the active shooter does not open that classroom door...
RobG
Well-known member
A shotgun with a big magazine on it maybe, but if he had to stop and reload every 5-10 shots people would either run out of range or tackle him. The total ammo throughput is the basic issue. Banning a particular weapon is a waste of time, you have to address the capability of the weapon - these magazine fed semi-autos are an order of magnitude more effective in a mass shooting than other guns. (I don't support a ban, but support much more background check and hassle to obtain weapons of this capability.)
The Florida shooter also tried to fire at the fleeing students from a 3rd floor window but he couldn't break the glass. A shotgun wouldn't have had the range for that, nor would it have worked in the Las Vegas shooting.
In the public eye this is a much bigger problem than just school shootings. They are going to do something about it whether you want it or not. I just got off the phone with a well known hunter and even he is sick of these assault-type weapons. If we don't do something the gun haters will. It looks like Florida is going to raise the age to buy "rifles" to 21. How pointless and stupid is that? We need to admit these weapons are in a different class and start treating that way or it is going to be a giant pain in the ass to by any gun. We are probably also going to have to pay a fat tax on ammo.
Archeryforever
New member
- Joined
- Jul 23, 2017
- Messages
- 12
our priorities are a mess in this country, we protect our politicians, our sports stars, and even the know nothing celebrities all with armed protection thats right protect them from harm with guns, but God forbid someone want this country to do the same for our children, you cant stop crazy from being crazy, but you can sure as hell stop it with a well trained on staff security detail
It's a multiple tier problem that's going to take a multiple tier approach. Mental health, school access and security, warning signs, media attention, etc. The big debate now is arming staff. That's the only one I have and idea on so I"ll throw it out there. As far as that goes I get it if a teacher doesn't want to be responsible for a gun in their classroom. I can see the hazard potential there. I wouldn't tell one no if they wanted to, but let's be honest I can see why they may not want to. But why not give them other options? Like a Bean Bag gun, pepper spray, or Taser? It sounds crazy against a gun but hear me out. I was a reserve deputy for a while. I took a Taser ride. I can only describe it as 100 devils riverdancing on your body in high heels. It hurts, you can't move, you can't do anything but want to pee your pants but you don't have a choice to or not because you don't even have the muscular control. Wet or dry pants is no guarantee. In the event a school goes into lockdown the teacher grabs their implement after locking the door. They arm it. Point the laser beam and flashlight on taser at the door and if anyone gets through without the Codeword they ride the lighting. If they had a gun in their hands they ride until the batteries go dead giving someone a chance to subdue them. But in the event someone get ahold of it on any given day the odds of a fatal accident are GREATLY decreased vs a gun however in the event that the horrid event happens they aren't empty handed. I'm not saying this to fuel the fire but just throw an idea out. What do you think?
Straight Arrow
Well-known member
Thanks, Firedude; I agree a Taser is a much more practical approach to arming educational professionals.
Gut Shot
Well-known member
Yeah, never mind that he cherry picked my post and twisted it to fit his narrative. I wonder if he works for national media?
Similar threads
