Jump to content

What is wrong with people?


Dead Voodoo Doll

Recommended Posts

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/12/14/15907407-26-dead-after-gunman-assaults-connecticut-elementary-school-official-says?lite

By Miguel Llanos, NBC News

Updated at 1:30 p.m. ET: Twenty-six people, including 18 children, were killed when a gunman opened fire in a Connecticut elementary school Friday morning, a law enforcement official said.

The gunman, who is dead, was a 20-year-old from Connecticut, an official said. He was wearing all black and was carrying two 9mm handguns. Another person was being held by police and questioned, an official said.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 119
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Teachers need to be allowed to carry at work. Any place you dearm individuals is just a future potential shooting gallery.

And WTF is with this line? "The death toll is the highest from a school shooting in U.S. history since a gunman killed 32 people at Virginia Tech in 2007." Highest in history... since 2007. Great writing there...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

https://www.facebook.com/rlanza?fref=ts

lol they took it down or it's being overloaded with requests apparently.

Interesting how people have nothing better to do than make crap like this....https://pbs.twimg.com/media/A-GU_PwCUAAQgFA.png:large

Not familiar with this site. http://www.mediaite.com/online/is-this-connecticut-school-shooter-ryan-lanzas-facebook/

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mediaite)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Should remove guns form the picture all together.

It is uterrly rediculous that it is easier to obtain the power to end someones life in this country than it is to obtain power for your house.

Instead of wishing for the impossible, we need to accept reality as it is and deal with it. Guns need to be allowed on campuses, otherwise these kinds of incidents will continue to happen.

I'm not sure what you mean by 'power for your house'.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

People who typically care enough to get a conceal carry permit have more than "minimal to no training". We aren't talking about handing firearms to every random person off the street. This is assuming it would even come to a shoot out situation. The mere fact that various staff members possess guns would be enough to deter many of these situations.

What we know for absolute certainty is that creating densely populated areas of unarmed people is not a safe or wise place to be.

As always, allowing people to be responsible for their own safety, and increasing education (of firearms) is the answer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not convinced that in a crowded' date=' chaotic situation, having more people with minimal or no training firing guns is going to improve the outcome.[/quote']

Two experiences, for me at least, might challenge that notion.

When I was in elementary school a 19 year old walked into the elementary school next to mine and shot 11 people, killing two kids. During the chaos, Mrs. Finkbeiner, a PE teacher, confronted the guy, and kept him from entering a bathroom filled with children. She got shot through the hand and then shot through the cheek, yet she fought on. I'm convinced that if she had had a gun in that situation she might have had the chance to end that dude right there.

http://www.columbine-angels.com/School_Violence_1988-1989.htm - See Oakland Elementary, Greenwood, SC 1988.

In another case, at an AA meeting in the 5 Points district of Columbia, SC (I used to live right next to it) a man walked in with a gun, presumably to rob those in attendance. However, a local attorney was in there, and he had a gun. He made quick work of the would-be robber.

You are right, some people would make it worse, but some, even untrained, would make it better. It goes both ways.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What we know for absolute certainty is that creating densely populated areas of unarmed people is not a safe or wise place to be.

I agree. But since we can't be certain what arming all those people will do, is it worth the risk of even more death?

That's where safety comes into play. It -MIGHT- make it better, or it -MIGHT- make it worse. The possibility of making something WORSE has more weight than not being able to guarantee it will make it better.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This isn't a case of "well, you have to prove that you need to be able to protect yourself otherwise we won't let you". We are free, and as free people, it is our natural right to be able to do what we need to to ensure our own safety, without having to convince anyone else. An unarmed populace, even in a school setting, is not the answer.

What you seem to be imagining is that this would turn into some Wild West shoot out, which is not the case. The same argument was made for people being able to defend their homes, and that obviously has not been the case.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am not imagining anything...I'm saying we can't predict the outcome of an influx of guns in the neighborhood, workplace, and school.

The possibility that it could lead to more innocent deaths outweighs the notion that every now and then a tragic crime, that you also cannot predict, might be stopped.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Coming from a southern grown redneck.

I have been handling and shooting guns since I was six. I have my concealed handgun liscense only because of the law passed not long ago.

I am CONFIDENT that if I was there and had a gun, the kid would have been killed swiftly. I would not have shot any innocent kids by accident.

When you are trained in how to use a weapon, accidental injuries become minimal if not non existant. When the weapons are used properly, it can save lifes.

I agree to an extent that teachers should carry, but not just every teacher. They need to be trained properly and prove they can handle the situation.

Guns don't kill people, people kill people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Coming from a southern grown redneck.

I have been handling and shooting guns since I was six. I have my concealed handgun liscense only because of the law passed not long ago.

I am CONFIDENT that if I was there and had a gun, the kid would have been killed swiftly. I would not have shot any innocent kids by accident.

When you are trained in how to use a weapon, accidental injuries become minimal if not non existant. When the weapons are used properly, it can save lifes.

I agree to an extent that teachers should carry, but not just every teacher. They need to be trained properly and prove they can handle the situation.

Guns don't kill people, people kill people.

YOU may not have slipped and shot someone you shouldn't have.... But for everyone of you, there is another gun toting cowboy, or insecure individual who spooks easily and shouldn't have a gun holstered OR drawn in a crisis.

If we could guarantee that everyone is expertly trained in gun safety, marksmanship, etc then I would agree with you that it is a great idea.

What WILL ultimately happen though is third-rate training facilities will pass out licenses like candy for a quick buck and now you have Charlie Bronson wannabes roaming all over the place trying to be the hero that makes it on tomorrow's front page.

I am ALLLLLLL FOR the 2nd-A like I said, but I try to take a very rational approach to instead of just a protect everyones 2nd-A right no matter what stance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

YOU may not have slipped and shot someone you shouldn't have.... But for everyone of you' date=' there is another gun toting cowboy, or insecure individual who spooks easily and shouldn't have a gun holstered OR drawn in a crisis.[/quote']

This is always used as some imaginary spook to keep gun control around, but really, when has this ever been the case? Where are these gun toting cowboys or insecure individuals now? Can you point to a single story where a person with a conceal carry permit and properly armed has made a dangerous situation worse?

You cannot say that another person will make a dangerous situation that they are involved in worse by giving them the ability to defend themself. It's not your decision, or the government's decision, to make.

It's better to err on the side of freedom, than to err on the side of a police state.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What WILL ultimately happen though is third-rate training facilities will pass out licenses like candy for a quick buck and now you have Charlie Bronson wannabes roaming all over the place trying to be the hero that makes it on tomorrow's front page.

Why is that not happening now, then?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is always used as some imaginary spook to keep gun control around, but really, when has this ever been the case? Where are these gun toting cowboys or insecure individuals now? Can you point to a single story where a person with a conceal carry permit and properly armed has made a dangerous situation worse?

You cannot say that another person will make a dangerous situation that they are involved in worse by giving them the ability to defend themself. It's not your decision, or the government's decision, to make.

I'm not saying it has happened and I won't take the time to research it (but I did hear about the guy who shot his own son thru the face in his car....not the same context, but just illustrating how random accidents happen already)

All I'm saying is that you can't predict the outcome of an influx of guns. And because you can't, neither of us can if it will be better or worse. And since there is a risk of making it worse, we shouldn't be so quick to jump up and say go for it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why is that not happening now' date=' then?[/quote']

Because the demand isn't there yet. You start telling everyone and their mother to go get trained, tested, and certified, and then re-certified every year to conceal/carry and it will. When the demand gets higher and competition between training facilities increases, the quality goes down and then you have someone packing a .38 special who got their permit from the 5 and dime.

I'm going out on a limb here, but it COULD happen...

Again, I am all for it. I think everyone and their mother and their 10yr old son should be packing heat.

BUT.

BIGGGGGG BUT

ONLY if they have been tested, proven, and required to re-test psych screenings, safety, awareness, and many other situations they could find themselves in.

And because we cannot guarantee that this level of training can be instilled (trusting federal regulation of licensing requirements to regulate something you dont want them regulating in the first place?) then I am not sold on it.

8 out 10 teachers that might have been armed that day could have saved the whole school....but what if those 8 didn't bring their guns that day and instead the 1 idiot who slipped thru the cracks and got his conceal permit brought his and accidentally shoots a kid? Is it worth risking that?

All I'm saying is we have to be careful on how we approach 2nd-A. I believe it is everyones right...but I believe even more fervently in the responsibility that those rights come with.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Because the demand isn't there yet. You start telling everyone and their mother to go get trained, tested, and certified, and then re-certified every year to conceal/carry and it will. When the demand gets higher and competition between training facilities increases, the quality goes down and then you have someone packing a .38 special who got their permit from the 5 and dime.

I'm going out on a limb here, but it COULD happen...

Come on, this is silly. Competition ALWAYS improves quality, not the other way around. Not to mention, this is just for concealed carry. Anyone can go to the local armory, but a handgun, and keep it at home or open carry depending on the state. Telling teachers they can carry at work is not going to create a large rise in permits issued.

ONLY if they have been tested, proven, and required to re-test psych screenings, safety, awareness, and many other situations they could find themselves in.

You should not have to jump through hoops to be able to exercise basic rights.

And because we cannot guarantee that this level of training can be instilled (trusting federal regulation of licensing requirements to regulate something you dont want them regulating in the first place?) then I am not sold on it.

This is regulation creating the problem in the first place. More regulation is not the answer. 'We' don't need to guarantee any training. People who care enough about their personal safety to get a conceal carry permit in the first place, are also going to care enough about their personal safety to know how to use it.

8 out 10 teachers that might have been armed that day could have saved the whole school....but what if those 8 didn't bring their guns that day and instead the 1 idiot who slipped thru the cracks and got his conceal permit brought his and accidentally shoots a kid? Is it worth risking that?

Horror stories are always used to strip rights away. If, according to you, you are taking a risk either way, then you take a risk in favor of freedom and personal liberty.

All I'm saying is we have to be careful on how we approach 2nd-A. I believe it is everyones right...but I believe even more fervently in the responsibility that those rights come with.

The bill of rights doesn't need to be 'approached'. It's an inherent right that should of never been encroached on in the first place. Keeping teachers unarmed is a relatively new invention.

Not to single you out in particular, but this idea that people need to show a need before they are allowed to have a certain freedom or liberty is what plagues this country today. Freedom should be the default state in any discussion. A restriction of any freedom or liberty should be done on an individual basis AFTER a law has been clearly broken, and never across the board as is usually the case now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...