After the shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown that killed 26 people, administrators at Fairview said some parents approached them about allowing teachers to carry guns. Becky Wright-Welty, whose 13-year-old son attends the school, said she asked the Fairview School District’s board members: “What are we doing about security? I want to know.”
One of the biggest concerns of administrators and parents was that the quickest the sheriff’s department could reach Fairview, the district’s only school, would be nine minutes.
The school board, which includes a former county sheriff, worked out the details of liability coverage with Fairview’s insurance provider. Then, at an open meeting in late February, it authorized some of the school employees to undergo a training program that would certify them to carry guns on campus.
Those employees took a 40-hour course during spring break last month through a company called Shield Solutions, whose instructors included local SWAT team members. The training, which was paid for by the school, included firearms and situational drills. The employees, who have furnished their own guns, each also had to pass a background check, a drug test and a mental evaluation — all of which must be repeated annually, as well as additional firearms training and recertification.
“It’s not a ‘Well, here’s your gun; carry it,’ ” said Vic Williams, the Fairview superintendent. “It’s very closely monitored. It’s not a Clint Eastwood-type deal.”
At the first school board meeting after spring break, the board sanctioned those who had passed the training — and were then also considered Shield Solutions employees — to carry weapons at school. Most of West Plains learned the news from the front-page article in The Quill on March 21. Four days later, the district sent a letter to parents addressing concerns.
“I was really upset more about the way it happened, the back door,” said Eileen Wilson, 53, adding that she was considering removing her daughter, who is autistic, from Fairview. “I just don’t think something of this magnitude is something you just put out in a press release. ‘Oh, by the way, we got 10 people packing weapons now in school.’ ”
Interesting, I guess the guys who said "we should allow the teachers to conceal carry" finally get to put their money where their mouth is.
Only things that I don't like about the article is that they seem to go really out of their way to make it look like these people are a bunch of hicks. I'm not sure if that was intentionally meant to be a "Look at these stupid hicks" kind of thing, or if they were just trying to say "out there, this is normal." I'll let you guys decide on that.
The one thing that bugs me the most though is that according to the article this was done behind "closed doors". If this is true, then I'd be pretty upset, even though I would be all for this kind of thing. Something that big you don't just drop on peoples' heads after it's already passed, as you risk angering people who might have supported it or remained ambivalent otherwise. At least say "hey parents, we're thinking about letting the teachers conceal carry, we'll be voting on it next month."
So yeah, what do you think Dakka? We already trust these people with our children's lives 8 hours a day, 5 days a week (sometimes more). If they weren't going nuts and stabbing them in the face with pencils, I don't think the average teacher is going to go on a rampage just because he conceal carrys a pistol. Especially if they go through the kind of thing like these teachers did, with a background check, mental test, and drug testing, as well as yearly requalification, which is much more strict than what your average CCL holder goes through. What I wonder though is if this would actually intimidate most school shootings from happening, or if they'd keep happening even if every school adopted this policy. And if a student did try to shoot up a school with this policy, would the teacher be able to take that kid's life in order to protect the rest of the class? Because even if the teacher was in the right and that kid was dual wielding M60's, you know there'd be a media gakstorm the like of which we've never seen.
After the shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown that killed 26 people, administrators at Fairview said some parents approached them about allowing teachers to carry guns. Becky Wright-Welty, whose 13-year-old son attends the school, said she asked the Fairview School District’s board members: “What are we doing about security? I want to know.”
One of the biggest concerns of administrators and parents was that the quickest the sheriff’s department could reach Fairview, the district’s only school, would be nine minutes.
The school board, which includes a former county sheriff, worked out the details of liability coverage with Fairview’s insurance provider. Then, at an open meeting in late February, it authorized some of the school employees to undergo a training program that would certify them to carry guns on campus.
Those employees took a 40-hour course during spring break last month through a company called Shield Solutions, whose instructors included local SWAT team members. The training, which was paid for by the school, included firearms and situational drills. The employees, who have furnished their own guns, each also had to pass a background check, a drug test and a mental evaluation — all of which must be repeated annually, as well as additional firearms training and recertification.
“It’s not a ‘Well, here’s your gun; carry it,’ ” said Vic Williams, the Fairview superintendent. “It’s very closely monitored. It’s not a Clint Eastwood-type deal.”
At the first school board meeting after spring break, the board sanctioned those who had passed the training — and were then also considered Shield Solutions employees — to carry weapons at school. Most of West Plains learned the news from the front-page article in The Quill on March 21. Four days later, the district sent a letter to parents addressing concerns.
“I was really upset more about the way it happened, the back door,” said Eileen Wilson, 53, adding that she was considering removing her daughter, who is autistic, from Fairview. “I just don’t think something of this magnitude is something you just put out in a press release. ‘Oh, by the way, we got 10 people packing weapons now in school.’ ”
Interesting, I guess the guys who said "we should allow the teachers to conceal carry" finally get to put their money where their mouth is.
Yep... have a few friends who told me this...
Only things that I don't like about the article is that they seem to go really out of their way to make it look like these people are a bunch of hicks. I'm not sure if that was intentionally meant to be a "Look at these stupid hicks" kind of thing, or if they were just trying to say "out there, this is normal." I'll let you guys decide on that.
At least we're armed hicks...
The one thing that bugs me the most though is that according to the article this was done behind "closed doors". If this is true, then I'd be pretty upset, even though I would be all for this kind of thing. Something that big you don't just drop on peoples' heads after it's already passed, as you risk angering people who might have supported it or remained ambivalent otherwise. At least say "hey parents, we're thinking about letting the teachers conceal carry, we'll be voting on it next month."
The school board did announce it publically way in advanced... the problem was that they announced it via their normal means. If you don't pay attention to your school board, you'll miss this communication. I guess they should've taken out an Ad in the local news paper? But, who reads the paper?
So yeah, what do you think Dakka? We already trust these people with our children's lives 8 hours a day, 5 days a week (sometimes more). If they weren't going nuts and stabbing them in the face with pencils, I don't think the average teacher is going to go on a rampage just because he conceal carrys a pistol. Especially if they go through the kind of thing like these teachers did, with a background check, mental test, and drug testing, as well as yearly requalification, which is much more strict than what your average CCL holder goes through. What I wonder though is if this would actually intimidate most school shootings from happening, or if they'd keep happening even if every school adopted this policy. And if a student did try to shoot up a school with this policy, would the teacher be able to take that kid's life in order to protect the rest of the class? Because even if the teacher was in the right and that kid was dual wielding M60's, you know there'd be a media gakstorm the like of which we've never seen.
juraigamer wrote: Give it 8 months, a kid will get one of the guns in his hand and wack a teacher.
Would be pretty hard, these teachers aren't open carrying on the hip, they've got the firearms concealed on their person where you can't see it.
If a K-8 child can overpower a teacher and steal his weapon without the teacher being able to react in time, we've got bigger problems. Plus the students and family don't know who the armed teachers are (yet). As long as a teacher isn't stupid enough to print or show his gun off, you'd have no idea if he's really armed or just one of the teachers who decided they'd rather not carry.
These people are trained by local SWAT officers, and must pass an annual background check, drug test and mental health exam to stay qualified (plus the other certifications required). The school board let the parents know through what appears to be the usual channels, the news picked up on it in due time an reported it.
I'm not seeing what the issue is here, so good for them.
Dreadclaw69 wrote: These people are trained by local SWAT officers, and must pass an annual background check, drug test and mental health exam to stay qualified (plus the other certifications required). The school board let the parents know through what appears to be the usual channels, the news picked up on it in due time an reported it.
I'm not seeing what the issue is here, so good for them.
But THNK OF THE CHILDRENZ!!!!
Frazzled... the whip and chair isn't to keep the hyenas away... it's to "encourage" respect.
juraigamer wrote: Give it 8 months, a kid will get one of the guns in his hand and wack a teacher.
Give it 8 months, a teacher will wack a kid.
Who probably deserved it.
If a teacher isn't wacking a student with their hand, why would they wack a student with a gun? Why don't police officers just shoot everyone who pisses them off?
Dreadclaw69 wrote: These people are trained by local SWAT officers, and must pass an annual background check, drug test and mental health exam to stay qualified (plus the other certifications required). The school board let the parents know through what appears to be the usual channels, the news picked up on it in due time an reported it.
I'm not seeing what the issue is here, so good for them.
But THNK OF THE CHILDRENZ!!!!
Frazzled... the whip and chair isn't to keep the hyenas away... it's to "encourage" respect.
juraigamer wrote: Give it 8 months, a kid will get one of the guns in his hand and wack a teacher.
Give it 8 months, a teacher will wack a kid.
Who probably deserved it.
If a teacher isn't wacking a student with their hand, why would they wack a student with a gun? Why don't police officers just shoot everyone who pisses them off?
So are you really arguing instead that more teachers should be smacking their students? Now thats old school.
juraigamer wrote: Give it 8 months, a kid will get one of the guns in his hand and wack a teacher.
Give it 8 months, a teacher will wack a kid.
Who probably deserved it.
If a teacher isn't wacking a student with their hand, why would they wack a student with a gun? Why don't police officers just shoot everyone who pisses them off?
So are you really arguing instead that more teachers should be smacking their students? Now thats old school.
Not really. I just don't get this idea that teachers who don't lose their temper and smack students are all of a sudden going to start losing their tempers and shooting students if they're allowed to concealed carry after completing a substantial training and certification course. Or even that getting pissed off in general while CCing means that the person CCing is going to start shooting people.
juraigamer wrote: Give it 8 months, a kid will get one of the guns in his hand and wack a teacher.
Give it 8 months, a teacher will wack a kid.
Who probably deserved it.
If a teacher isn't wacking a student with their hand, why would they wack a student with a gun? Why don't police officers just shoot everyone who pisses them off?
So are you really arguing instead that more teachers should be smacking their students? Now thats old school.
Not really. I just don't get this idea that teachers who don't lose their temper and smack students are all of a sudden going to start losing their tempers and shooting students if they're allowed to concealed carry after completing a substantial training and certification course. Or even that getting pissed off in general while CCing means that the person CCing is going to start shooting people.
Agreed. But lets admit it, little Timmy needs a smack upside the head. Pull those pants up Little Timmy and pay attention you mouthbreathing nattering nabob!
So... if teachers are allowed to conceal-carry in schools... and Missouri is a Stand Your Ground state... and it's been well established that pointing in a gun-like fashion with your thumb & forefinger is considered a weapon in schools...
I give it six months before a teacher feels intimidated by a kid that ate a Pop Tart into the shape of a gun and shoots him.
azazel the cat wrote: So... if teachers are allowed to conceal-carry in schools... and Missouri is a Stand Your Ground state... and it's been well established that pointing in a gun-like fashion with your thumb & forefinger is considered a weapon in schools...
I give it six months before a teacher feels intimidated by a kid that ate a Pop Tart into the shape of a gun and shoots him.
Come on. The people who are intimidated by kids with pop-tart guns are likely to gak themselves at the thought of actually holding one.
Now what they should do is equip the Jr. High teachers with whips and chairs "Down you pack of hyenas! Down!"
Israeli school security are armed following a series of terrorist attacks.
Coordinated terrorist assaults with specific intention of targeting youth is not the same as derranged individuals. And israeli gun controls are actually quite strict. (Or so I understand)
But speaking as a brit. It just seems absolutely horrendous. The laxity in your gun control laws compared to the uks is considered shocking. A general opinion of 'that is absolutely nuts!' And anyone here who would advocate guns in schools would quite literally be laughed at the sheer idiocy of allowing guns in an even remotely close proximity to children.
But then we have no great love for guns, some shotguns dotted about the countryside, and no much else.
So as a brit, I can't see it as anything but Abhorrent.
azazel the cat wrote: So... if teachers are allowed to conceal-carry in schools... and Missouri is a Stand Your Ground state... and it's been well established that pointing in a gun-like fashion with your thumb & forefinger is considered a weapon in schools...
I give it six months before a teacher feels intimidated by a kid that ate a Pop Tart into the shape of a gun and shoots him.
Welll then the rest of them will learn not to eat a pop tart. once again, evolution serves!
Now what they should do is equip the Jr. High teachers with whips and chairs "Down you pack of hyenas! Down!"
Israeli school security are armed following a series of terrorist attacks.
Coordinated terrorist assaults with specific intention of targeting youth is not the same as derranged individuals. And israeli gun controls are actually quite strict. (Or so I understand)
But speaking as a brit. It just seems absolutely horrendous. The laxity in your gun control laws compared to the uks is considered shocking. A general opinion of 'that is absolutely nuts!' And anyone here who would advocate guns in schools would quite literally be laughed at the sheer idiocy of allowing guns in an even remotely close proximity to children.
But then we have no great love for guns, some shotguns dotted about the countryside, and no much else.
So as a brit, I can't see it as anything but Abhorrent.
Which is just fine. Though we share a common background, our cultures are drastically different. That's why it irritates me so much when you guys tell us how off base we are. In our eyes, you guys are just as insane.
Now what they should do is equip the Jr. High teachers with whips and chairs "Down you pack of hyenas! Down!"
Israeli school security are armed following a series of terrorist attacks. Coordinated terrorist assaults with specific intention of targeting youth is not the same as derranged individuals. And israeli gun controls are actually quite strict. (Or so I understand)
But speaking as a brit. It just seems absolutely horrendous. The laxity in your gun control laws compared to the uks is considered shocking. A general opinion of 'that is absolutely nuts!' And anyone here who would advocate guns in schools would quite literally be laughed at the sheer idiocy of allowing guns in an even remotely close proximity to children.
But then we have no great love for guns, some shotguns dotted about the countryside, and no much else.
So as a brit, I can't see it as anything but Abhorrent.
Nutjobs trying to kill kids sounds like terrorism to me. Thats ok. We've seen your dental care. Now THATS abhorrent.
And don't forget Death to the Queen!
(which is quite different than death to Queen, who were really awesome).
Now what they should do is equip the Jr. High teachers with whips and chairs "Down you pack of hyenas! Down!"
Israeli school security are armed following a series of terrorist attacks.
Coordinated terrorist assaults with specific intention of targeting youth is not the same as derranged individuals. And israeli gun controls are actually quite strict. (Or so I understand)
But speaking as a brit. It just seems absolutely horrendous. The laxity in your gun control laws compared to the uks is considered shocking. A general opinion of 'that is absolutely nuts!' And anyone here who would advocate guns in schools would quite literally be laughed at the sheer idiocy of allowing guns in an even remotely close proximity to children.
But then we have no great love for guns, some shotguns dotted about the countryside, and no much else.
So as a brit, I can't see it as anything but Abhorrent.
Nutjobs trying to kill kids sounds like terrorism to me.
Thats ok. We've seen your dental care. Now THATS abhorrent.
Now what they should do is equip the Jr. High teachers with whips and chairs "Down you pack of hyenas! Down!"
Israeli school security are armed following a series of terrorist attacks.
Coordinated terrorist assaults with specific intention of targeting youth is not the same as derranged individuals. And israeli gun controls are actually quite strict. (Or so I understand)
But speaking as a brit. It just seems absolutely horrendous. The laxity in your gun control laws compared to the uks is considered shocking. A general opinion of 'that is absolutely nuts!' And anyone here who would advocate guns in schools would quite literally be laughed at the sheer idiocy of allowing guns in an even remotely close proximity to children.
But then we have no great love for guns, some shotguns dotted about the countryside, and no much else.
So as a brit, I can't see it as anything but Abhorrent.
Which is just fine. Though we share a common background, our cultures are drastically different. That's why it irritates me so much when you guys tell us how off base we are. In our eyes, you guys are just as insane.
Indeed, heck the general "superior than thou" vibe many Europeans seem to exibit towards American customs and laws is annoying.
Now what they should do is equip the Jr. High teachers with whips and chairs "Down you pack of hyenas! Down!"
Israeli school security are armed following a series of terrorist attacks.
Coordinated terrorist assaults with specific intention of targeting youth is not the same as derranged individuals. And israeli gun controls are actually quite strict. (Or so I understand)
But speaking as a brit. It just seems absolutely horrendous. The laxity in your gun control laws compared to the uks is considered shocking. A general opinion of 'that is absolutely nuts!' And anyone here who would advocate guns in schools would quite literally be laughed at the sheer idiocy of allowing guns in an even remotely close proximity to children.
But then we have no great love for guns, some shotguns dotted about the countryside, and no much else.
So as a brit, I can't see it as anything but Abhorrent.
You immigrated to the US recently?
Don't worry... give it enough time and we'll corrupt you. Soon, you'll be armed to the teeth!
juraigamer wrote: Give it 8 months, a kid will get one of the guns in his hand and wack a teacher.
Give it 8 months, a teacher will wack a kid.
Who probably deserved it.
If a teacher isn't wacking a student with their hand, why would they wack a student with a gun? Why don't police officers just shoot everyone who pisses them off?
Who said teachers aren't wacking their students with their hand? One threw a desk at me once... well he was aiming for someone else but I was the one who got hit.
juraigamer wrote: Give it 8 months, a kid will get one of the guns in his hand and wack a teacher.
Give it 8 months, a teacher will wack a kid.
Who probably deserved it.
If a teacher isn't wacking a student with their hand, why would they wack a student with a gun? Why don't police officers just shoot everyone who pisses them off?
Who said teachers aren't wacking their students with their hand? One threw a desk at me once... well he was aiming for someone else but I was the one who got hit.
And I deserved it too.
Nobody said they weren't. In some states corporal punishment in schools is still legal, but around here it would cost a teacher their job. In addition, I would question the idea that a teacher who would smack a student would also shoot a student. There's this thing called escalation of force which has some pretty strict requirements and is discussed at length in basic CCW courses. I'd be willing to bet it was hammered home continuously during the more in-depth training any of these teachers received.
azazel the cat wrote: So... if teachers are allowed to conceal-carry in schools... and Missouri is a Stand Your Ground state... and it's been well established that pointing in a gun-like fashion with your thumb & forefinger is considered a weapon in schools...
I give it six months before a teacher feels intimidated by a kid that ate a Pop Tart into the shape of a gun and shoots him.
Come on. The people who are intimidated by kids with pop-tart guns are likely to gak themselves at the thought of actually holding one.
Also the most likely people to be carrying a firearm. (go on, tell me it's not a fear-based culture)
Hordini wrote: In addition, I would question the idea that a teacher who would smack a student would also shoot a student.
Usually yes, but there are several cases where teachers have cracked under continual pressure from kids and attacked them with what they had to hand, a book, a chair, etc. Certainly the child provoked them, and some children are awful, and push people to the edge. It would be nice to think that these situations shouldn't happen, but the reality is that a lot of schools are less them perfect when it comes to supporting their staff in and outside of the classroom and people are allowed to become strained and ill. I've known teachers that have had breakdowns because of this, others that have returned to work before they were ready and put under pressure by the school instead of supported. One of my primary school teachers eventually lost his job because he shouted in kids faces and manhandled one out of the room. He'd only been back a few weeks after being off for stress. But it's more common than you'd hope, teachers go sick, come back and are pushed straight back in the classroom with huge classes, no support and some extremely disruptive pupils.
Here's an extreme case. A teacher was charged with attempted murder of a pupil who pushed him too far when he was mentally fragile after returning to work and likely not supported properly by the school. He didn't serve a prison sentence, despite hitting the kid and shouting 'die die die'. He was a well liked, experienced teacher with a good record, but he still eventually cracked under the strain, and violently.
While an extreme example, I'm sure there are many cases of teachers hitting disruptive pupils because they lose control. But give them guns, and they have the power to shoot someone dead in a moment. It's just a bad idea. Are school shootings so common? Is arming the teaching staff really an effective means to prevent them? Or is it more likely to lead to accidents and misuse? It'll be interesting to see if the first person shot by a teacher is in fact an armed intruder.
daedalus wrote: To be fair, Missouri is very much so a "okay, well, here's your gun" kind of state in general, not that I think that is necessarily a bad thing.
Except when the Highway Patrol department illegally sends CCW data to the DHS.
azazel the cat wrote:So... if teachers are allowed to conceal-carry in schools... and Missouri is a Stand Your Ground state... and it's been well established that pointing in a gun-like fashion with your thumb & forefinger is considered a weapon in schools...
I give it six months before a teacher feels intimidated by a kid that ate a Pop Tart into the shape of a gun and shoots him.
I laughed way harder than I should have. Thankfully the kind of teacher that would do this would probably faint at the thought of carrying a firearm on their person. 10/10
Now what they should do is equip the Jr. High teachers with whips and chairs "Down you pack of hyenas! Down!"
Israeli school security are armed following a series of terrorist attacks.
Coordinated terrorist assaults with specific intention of targeting youth is not the same as derranged individuals. And israeli gun controls are actually quite strict. (Or so I understand)
But speaking as a brit. It just seems absolutely horrendous. The laxity in your gun control laws compared to the uks is considered shocking. A general opinion of 'that is absolutely nuts!' And anyone here who would advocate guns in schools would quite literally be laughed at the sheer idiocy of allowing guns in an even remotely close proximity to children.
But then we have no great love for guns, some shotguns dotted about the countryside, and no much else.
So as a brit, I can't see it as anything but Abhorrent.
Fair enough, you're British. There's a reason you live in your country and I live in mine. While I disagree with your opinion, you're not coming over here and trying to make us change our laws to match yours, so I've got no issue with you. Your country has its reasons for doing what it does and we have ours.
Now what they should do is equip the Jr. High teachers with whips and chairs "Down you pack of hyenas! Down!"
Israeli school security are armed following a series of terrorist attacks.
Coordinated terrorist assaults with specific intention of targeting youth is not the same as derranged individuals. And israeli gun controls are actually quite strict. (Or so I understand)
But speaking as a brit. It just seems absolutely horrendous. The laxity in your gun control laws compared to the uks is considered shocking. A general opinion of 'that is absolutely nuts!' And anyone here who would advocate guns in schools would quite literally be laughed at the sheer idiocy of allowing guns in an even remotely close proximity to children.
But then we have no great love for guns, some shotguns dotted about the countryside, and no much else.
So as a brit, I can't see it as anything but Abhorrent.
Nutjobs trying to kill kids sounds like terrorism to me.
Amen to that.
Out of all the possible solutions to school massacres, I think the option of giving teachers concealed carry training is probably the best we can hope for. Obviously not every teacher is going to carry, but as long as they conceal their pistol you'll never know who has one and who doesn't, hopefully deterring most shooters at the thought they could be stopped seconds into their attempted killing spree. As for the ones who do decide to go through with it, you now have a first response either in the room or within a couple of minutes of the problem, who knows the building well. They're already on the payroll, minimizing expense compared to hiring guards, and its an "invisible" measure that most kids will never even have to see. It's not perfect, but it will do a heck of a lot more than banning scary assault weapons.
The notion that some teacher is going to snap and shoot children is laughable, and also offensive. I live in Missouri, and am a target shooting enthusiast. I spend a lot of time around firearms, and people with CCW licenses, and it's very hard to tell when people are carrying or not. People that think it's easy need to get the Hollywood image of concealed weapons out of their mind. My sister is one of the most liberal thinking people I know, and the only member of my immediate family not to own their own firearm. She's also a teacher (currently only doing it as a substitute), and after the Sandy Hook shooting, even she suggested this course of action.
derek wrote: The notion that some teacher is going to snap and shoot children is laughable, and also offensive.
I think this is a good idea, but I do not think I share your bizarre presumption that teachers are somehow magical creatures incapable of having the same malfunctions that other people do, simply by virtue of the fact that they are teachers. They ARE human, after all, and as such, are just as subject to breaking as every other human being out there.
It's a calculated risk, just like every other decision that is made.
derek wrote: The notion that some teacher is going to snap and shoot children is laughable, and also offensive.
I think this is a good idea, but I do not think I share your bizarre presumption that teachers are somehow magical creatures incapable of having the same malfunctions that other people do, simply by virtue of the fact that they are teachers. They ARE human, after all, and as such, are just as subject to breaking as every other human being out there.
It's a calculated risk, just like every other decision that is made.
I think I was unclear in what I meant with that. I should have said I find it laughable and offensive that a teacher is at any more risk for snapping and shooting a child than any other normal person with no history of violent acts, mental illness, or other warning factors. Some people just break, very rarely does it happen without warning.
Dreadclaw69 wrote: These people are trained by local SWAT officers, and must pass an annual background check, drug test and mental health exam to stay qualified (plus the other certifications required). The school board let the parents know through what appears to be the usual channels, the news picked up on it in due time an reported it.
I'm not seeing what the issue is here, so good for them.
Now if only there were something similar that everyone had to do in order to own and use a gun...
Dreadclaw69 wrote: These people are trained by local SWAT officers, and must pass an annual background check, drug test and mental health exam to stay qualified (plus the other certifications required). The school board let the parents know through what appears to be the usual channels, the news picked up on it in due time an reported it.
I'm not seeing what the issue is here, so good for them.
Now if only there were something similar that everyone had to do in order to own and use a gun...
I think I was unclear in what I meant with that. I should have said I find it laughable and offensive that a teacher is at any more risk for snapping and shooting a child than any other normal person with no history of violent acts, mental illness, or other warning factors. Some people just break, very rarely does it happen without warning.
In District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008) "Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms"
So no, you don't just have the automatic right to have as many guns as you want to do whatever you want with them just because, nor is the regulation of the sale of guns an infringement of the second amendment.
One of the strangest things for me was seeing ammunition being sold in supermarkets because that's nothing like what happens in Northern Ireland (for obvious reasons ). I like to experience new things so it wasn't so much a shock, but after you fire the first few rounds, feel the recoil and smell the cordite you realise just what it is that you're holding and the responsibility involved. Until then its still a very abstract concept. I have to say though that I enjoyed it, it was my first time with a loaded firearm, and its something that I'd like to do more of. I fired an XD9 pistol and a P90, I still have the target from the second mag of P90 too
Why is it 'laughable and offensive' when teachers do snap and attack children with other objects that come to mind? It being 'offensive' is particularly ridiculous, unless you are so insecure that you can't stand your culture of gun proliferation being questioned. Why is the solution to gun crime to have more people with guns and make guns easier to access? This why gun control is so hard in the US, it's nothing to do with logic, it's an engrained part of cultural identity. Anything threatening guns is like threatening a Cornish person with losing their pasties. That I can understand. It seems that often in these threads people talk about how safe they and their friends are with guns. As though questioning the general wisdom of spreading guns around is a direct attack upon their competence. It doesn't matter how good any individual claims to be with a gun, the stats, last I looked describe a situation where people are more likely to have an accident or commit suicide with a gun than they are be murdered with one. You're more at risk of injuring yourself by owning a gun than you are by not owning one and having a burglar break in and hurt you. Yes yes, you'll claim that won't happen to you because you're good with a gun and most others are not, you'll beat the stats and be safer overall. That might be true, but your being good with a gun doesn't change the fact that when groups of people like teachers start carrying guns, they typically aren't all people you know, and when lots of them do it they just become another statistic.
Claiming that teachers could snap and shoot children is not laughable, it happens, teachers do snap. It's just they haven't had a gun on them at the time. Don't dismiss it. How many teachers have flipped out big time in a class, how many school shooting are there? Are pupils really safer with an armed teacher?
There's a false perception of risk. People carry guns in the street worry about violent crime, but you are far more likely to be killed by your partner than a stranger. I'm sure that unless there's an abnormally high reason to suspect a school will be the target of a crazy going rampage, probability will dictate that children will generally be at greater risk from a teacher carrying a gun every day than they will be from the random nutter bursting in. It might still be a very small risk, but would become apparent if guns in schools become more widespread.
As I said, it'll be interesting to see what the first few uses of firearms by teachers in schools are. I bet they won't all be stopping nutters coming in with rifles, which is fairly uncommon even in the US.
I didn't see anyone laughing at the idea of teachers attacking children.
I did see people laughing at the thought of such bleeding hearts as those who call the cops over pop tart guns would actually bother buying a gun, and going through the CCW process.
Howard A Treesong wrote: Why is it 'laughable and offensive' when teachers do snap and attack children with other objects that come to mind? It being 'offensive' is particularly ridiculous, unless you are so insecure that you can't stand your culture of gun proliferation being questioned. Why is the solution to gun crime to have more people with guns and make guns easier to access? This why gun control is so hard in the US, it's nothing to do with logic, it's an engrained part of cultural identity. Anything threatening guns is like threatening a Cornish person with losing their pasties. That I can understand. It seems that often in these threads people talk about how safe they and their friends are with guns. As though questioning the general wisdom of spreading guns around is a direct attack upon their competence. It doesn't matter how good any individual claims to be with a gun, the stats, last I looked describe a situation where people are more likely to have an accident or commit suicide with a gun than they are be murdered with one. You're more at risk of injuring yourself by owning a gun than you are by not owning one and having a burglar break in and hurt you. Yes yes, you'll claim that won't happen to you because you're good with a gun and most others are not, you'll beat the stats and be safer overall. That might be true, but your being good with a gun doesn't change the fact that when groups of people like teachers start carrying guns, they typically aren't all people you know, and when lots of them do it they just become another statistic.
And it's also statistically safer to fly than drive. You're statistically more likely to be murdered in the US in an area with stricter gun control than you are in an area with laws that allow citizens to carry. I don't know what point you're trying to make, other than you hate guns, and no one should own them. I explained why I think it's laughable, and offensive to assume that a person with a CCW license is going to suddenly start murdering with no warning. To me, it'd be like saying Police are likely to snap and start shooting people.
Did I say I hate guns and want no one to own them? No I didn't think so. I think the point I was trying to make was fairly clear, but perhaps you know that which is why you grossly distorted it in order to respond.
In District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008) "Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms"
So no, you don't just have the automatic right to have as many guns as you want to do whatever you want with them just because, nor is the regulation of the sale of guns an infringement of the second amendment.
I think you're confusing things...
I have the right to fill up my garage with as many guns that I can legally buy...
I think the odds of a teacher who goes through the classes for something like this, including annual recertification and mental health evaluations, snapping to the degree where they must murder a child right then and there are pretty low. It seems like they are doing this as much in the right way as possible, so give it a chance and see if it does anything.
Lord knows someone needs to try something new instead of the same old hand waving and banning a tiny number of guns that aren't generally used in gun violence because they are scary looking.
Howard A Treesong wrote: Claiming that teachers could snap and shoot children is not laughable, it happens, teachers do snap. It's just they haven't had a gun on them at the time. Don't dismiss it. How many teachers have flipped out big time in a class, how many school shooting are there? Are pupils really safer with an armed teacher?
But that's not the real question. The real question here is how much difference having a gun immediately available makes, since refusing to allow guns in schools doesn't do anything to stop a teacher from going back to their house/car/whatever, getting a gun, and coming back to murder everyone. How plausible is it really that you'd have any non-trivial number of teachers willing to murder children on an impulse but too lazy to go fetch a gun to do it?
In District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008) "Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms"
So no, you don't just have the automatic right to have as many guns as you want to do whatever you want with them just because, nor is the regulation of the sale of guns an infringement of the second amendment.
whembly wrote: I have the right to fill up my garage with as many guns that I can legally buy...
You're implying that I do not.
No, I am saying that you can have as many guns as you want, so long as you are legally able to buy them. There are already restrictions in place on the types of weapons you can buy, as well as waiting periods for other types of weapon and, in some cases, various back ground checks and so on. I simply suggest that in order to get any kind of gun the buyer should have to meet certain minimum requirements in terms of a clean background check, safety training etc, similar to if you wanted to drive a car you need to pass a test and have insurance, or if for some reason people decide to arm school teachers in the classroom they need to have passed some kind of training and be reassessed regularly in order to do so.
Howard A Treesong wrote: Claiming that teachers could snap and shoot children is not laughable, it happens, teachers do snap. It's just they haven't had a gun on them at the time. Don't dismiss it. How many teachers have flipped out big time in a class, how many school shooting are there? Are pupils really safer with an armed teacher?
But that's not the real question. The real question here is how much difference having a gun immediately available makes, since refusing to allow guns in schools doesn't do anything to stop a teacher from going back to their house/car/whatever, getting a gun, and coming back to murder everyone. How plausible is it really that you'd have any non-trivial number of teachers willing to murder children on an impulse but too lazy to go fetch a gun to do it?
Impulse, heat of the moment decisions count for a lot. As soon as people have to pause for a bit they calm down. I read an article on how barriers on bridges prevent suicides. Apparently a lot of suicide attempts are snap decisions not the result of planning, althought they might be extremely depressed. Just putting a small barrier, physically or figuratively, has quite an effect. If they are slowed down a bit they tend to clear their head after a moment and turn away. Anyone determined wont be stopped but that isn't where the effectiveness of such barriers lie.
SilverMK2 wrote: No, I am saying that you can have as many guns as you want, so long as you are legally able to buy them. There are already restrictions in place on the types of weapons you can buy, as well as waiting periods for other types of weapon and, in some cases, various back ground checks and so on. I simply suggest that in order to get any kind of gun the buyer should have to meet certain minimum requirements in terms of a clean background check, safety training etc, similar to if you wanted to drive a car you need to pass a test and have insurance, or if for some reason people decide to arm school teachers in the classroom they need to have passed some kind of training and be reassessed regularly in order to do so.
Not quite. Buying a gun is not analogous to driving a car on public roads. It would be...well, analogous to buying a car, which there are no requirements for beyond the ability to pay.
You want analogous to driving a car, you're looking at carrying a gun, and in most states, what you described is already in play. It's interesting to note, however, that the courts have said states need some sort of carry mechanism; you can't just prevent people from carrying guns. It's the right to keep AND bear arms, not just keep 'em.
I'm also highly amused that you quoted Heller earlier as part of your argument for more restrictions. Heller, as I'm sure you know, overturned a handgun ban as unconstitutional.
SilverMK2 wrote: No, I am saying that you can have as many guns as you want, so long as you are legally able to buy them. There are already restrictions in place on the types of weapons you can buy, as well as waiting periods for other types of weapon and, in some cases, various back ground checks and so on. I simply suggest that in order to get any kind of gun the buyer should have to meet certain minimum requirements in terms of a clean background check, safety training etc, similar to if you wanted to drive a car you need to pass a test and have insurance, or if for some reason people decide to arm school teachers in the classroom they need to have passed some kind of training and be reassessed regularly in order to do so.
Not quite. Buying a gun is not analogous to driving a car on public roads. It would be...well, analogous to buying a car, which there are no requirements for beyond the ability to pay.
You want analogous to driving a car, you're looking at carrying a gun, and in most states, what you described is already in play. It's interesting to note, however, that the courts have said states need some sort of carry mechanism; you can't just prevent people from carrying guns. It's the right to keep AND bear arms, not just keep 'em.
I'm also highly amused that you quoted Heller earlier as part of your argument for more restrictions. Heller, as I'm sure you know, overturned a handgun ban as unconstitutional.
On my phone so as to usinh heller - i hace no issuewith people owning guns, i would love to be able yo hunt and targwt shoot in the uk. But just because heller says you cant completwly ban guns, doesnt mean you cant restrict orregulater their sale and use... as said directly in the judgement abpve...
SilverMK2 wrote: On my phone so as to usinh heller - i hace no issuewith people owning guns, i would love to be able yo hunt and targwt shoot in the uk. But just because heller says you cant completwly ban guns, doesnt mean you cant restrict orregulater their sale and use... as said directly in the judgement abpve...
You're reading more into it than it actually says, I'm afraid. The language is couched the way it is in order to preserve the de facto bans of automatic weapons, tanks, nuclear arms, and so forth. When it comes to "weapons common to a militia," the court has invariably ruled that you can't touch those in terms of attempting to do away with them. As far as restrictions or qualifications to own, I'll put it this way; if there weren't obvious Second Amendment infringement issues, why haven't some of the more rabidly anti-gun state legislatures put something like that into place?
Seaward wrote: I'll put it this way; if there weren't obvious Second Amendment infringement issues, why haven't some of the more rabidly anti-gun state legislatures put something like that into place?
Because they are politically unworkable? The fact that a state legislature hasn't passed a law is hardly evidence that, as you are attempting to infer, they haven't tried because they knew it wouldn't pass constitutional muster. Reference any one of dozens of video game related legislatons that have been 100% knocked down, or any of the more recent wave of abortion restricting laws - in some cause the legislators themselves flatly admit that they do not think the law itself is constitutional but have an ulterior motive for passing it.
Now what they should do is equip the Jr. High teachers with whips and chairs "Down you pack of hyenas! Down!"
Israeli school security are armed following a series of terrorist attacks.
Coordinated terrorist assaults with specific intention of targeting youth is not the same as derranged individuals. And israeli gun controls are actually quite strict. (Or so I understand)
But speaking as a brit. It just seems absolutely horrendous. The laxity in your gun control laws compared to the uks is considered shocking. A general opinion of 'that is absolutely nuts!' And anyone here who would advocate guns in schools would quite literally be laughed at the sheer idiocy of allowing guns in an even remotely close proximity to children.
But then we have no great love for guns, some shotguns dotted about the countryside, and no much else.
So as a brit, I can't see it as anything but Abhorrent.
You immigrated to the US recently?
Don't worry... give it enough time and we'll corrupt you. Soon, you'll be armed to the teeth!
Nope. For some reason my Dakka flag keeps changing. Sometimes I'm british, sometimes I'm American. Take your pick.
But I am from yorkshire. Finest of Englands counties.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Also if anyones interested.
Ouze wrote: Because they are politically unworkable?
I doubt that very much, personally. If nutbag states like New York and Connecticut can get AWBs and hilarious mag cap bans through, I'm pretty sure they could mandate X number of hoops to jump through before you can buy Y. Except...everyone knows it wouldn't stand.
Personally, I think this is a good idea. It'll give the teachers a boost in confidence, especially the males with small penises. Well, unless their heat is concealed at the front of their pants, and when gak hits the fan, they accidentally blow their own nads off.
Sturmtruppen wrote: Personally, I think this is a good idea. It'll give the teachers a boost in confidence, especially the males with small penises. Well, unless their heat is concealed at the front of their pants, and when gak hits the fan, they accidentally blow their own nads off.
You're a lot more likely to hit your femoral than your nuts if you're appendix carrying.
derek wrote: The notion that some teacher is going to snap and shoot children is laughable, and also offensive. I live in Missouri, and am a target shooting enthusiast. I spend a lot of time around firearms, and people with CCW licenses, and it's very hard to tell when people are carrying or not. People that think it's easy need to get the Hollywood image of concealed weapons out of their mind. My sister is one of the most liberal thinking people I know, and the only member of my immediate family not to own their own firearm. She's also a teacher (currently only doing it as a substitute), and after the Sandy Hook shooting, even she suggested this course of action.
Statistically, CHL carriers are the safest, most law abiding people in the US. Even better than police in that regard. They don't "snap."
Some even look right snappy in their new genuine "made in Hawaii" all cotton Hawaiian shirts they got for their birthday. . .
derek wrote: The notion that some teacher is going to snap and shoot children is laughable, and also offensive. I live in Missouri, and am a target shooting enthusiast. I spend a lot of time around firearms, and people with CCW licenses, and it's very hard to tell when people are carrying or not. People that think it's easy need to get the Hollywood image of concealed weapons out of their mind. My sister is one of the most liberal thinking people I know, and the only member of my immediate family not to own their own firearm. She's also a teacher (currently only doing it as a substitute), and after the Sandy Hook shooting, even she suggested this course of action.
Statistically, CHL carriers are the safest, most law abiding people in the US. Even better than police in that regard. They don't "snap."
Some even look right snappy in their new genuine "made in Hawaii" all cotton Hawaiian shirts they got for their birthday. . .
It's easier to slam and insult the people who want to help keep our children safe, then admit they may be wrong.
whembly wrote: I have the right to fill up my garage with as many guns that I can legally buy...
You're implying that I do not.
No, I am saying that you can have as many guns as you want, so long as you are legally able to buy them. There are already restrictions in place on the types of weapons you can buy, as well as waiting periods for other types of weapon and, in some cases, various back ground checks and so on. I simply suggest that in order to get any kind of gun the buyer should have to meet certain minimum requirements in terms of a clean background check, safety training etc, similar to if you wanted to drive a car you need to pass a test and have insurance, or if for some reason people decide to arm school teachers in the classroom they need to have passed some kind of training and be reassessed regularly in order to do so.
No The Second Amendment says I can have as many guns as I want.
I don't have a garage full, but I do have a "man alcove" in said garage dedicated to the manly art of bangie bangie.
derek wrote: The notion that some teacher is going to snap and shoot children is laughable, and also offensive. I live in Missouri, and am a target shooting enthusiast. I spend a lot of time around firearms, and people with CCW licenses, and it's very hard to tell when people are carrying or not. People that think it's easy need to get the Hollywood image of concealed weapons out of their mind. My sister is one of the most liberal thinking people I know, and the only member of my immediate family not to own their own firearm. She's also a teacher (currently only doing it as a substitute), and after the Sandy Hook shooting, even she suggested this course of action.
Statistically, CHL carriers are the safest, most law abiding people in the US. Even better than police in that regard. They don't "snap."
Some even look right snappy in their new genuine "made in Hawaii" all cotton Hawaiian shirts they got for their birthday. . .
It's easier to slam and insult the people who want to help keep our children safe, then admit they may be wrong.
Well, I'll be nice and say the "people weirding out" are not familiar with CHL requirements and the ones that typically have it. They also make the very false assumption that, if its against the law, there aren't guns there now. If that were the case we wouldn't need the CHL in the first place, no?
Also, if this is passed it will further ingrain the "guns are the answer to everything" mindset into the American populace.
I could care less if the rest of the world thinks that way about us. Honestly, my give-a-gak-o-meter doesn't even twitch at the thought of it.
Americans do not think that guns are the answer to everything, and if you guys think that's how we are, then it's your own issue. I'm not going to waste a single second considering what some people in Europe think about my laws.
Also, if this is passed it will further ingrain the "guns are the answer to everything" mindset into the American populace.
I could care less if the rest of the world thinks that way about us. Honestly, my give-a-gak-o-meter doesn't even twitch at the thought of it.
Americans do not think that guns are the answer to everything, and if you guys think that's how we are, then it's your own issue. I'm not going to waste a single second considering what some people in Europe think about my laws.
Kind of interesting how people from other countries fret and panic about the gun possession of Americans though the odds of it affecting them in any significant way are microscopic. I don't understand it.
They're jealous of our manly essence. Its in the water. Thats why the commies want to fluoridate the water. Those dirty commies. Best to only drink distilled water, pure wood grain alcohol, and of course tequila.
Also, if this is passed it will further ingrain the "guns are the answer to everything" mindset into the American populace.
I could care less if the rest of the world thinks that way about us. Honestly, my give-a-gak-o-meter doesn't even twitch at the thought of it.
Americans do not think that guns are the answer to everything, and if you guys think that's how we are, then it's your own issue. I'm not going to waste a single second considering what some people in Europe think about my laws.
Kind of interesting how people from other countries fret and panic about the gun possession of Americans though the odds of it affecting them in any significant way are microscopic. I don't understand it.
It's one of the things that differentiate Americans from Europeans... they think their way is better... and we don't.
On the subject. Senate rejects background checks. They should have known. I announced I liked it, which means its immediately dead. Frazzled is not allowed to have nice things.
Frazzled is used to being beast of burden. Have horrible life, probably horrible death, but at least there is symmetry.*
Senate rejects gun amendment compromise
By Chris Moody, Yahoo! News
Political Reporter
PostsEmailRSSBy Chris Moody, Yahoo! News | The Ticket – 46 mins agoEmail 0Share 535Tweet67Share0PrintThe Senate on Wednesday rejected a bipartisan amendment that would have expanded background checks on gun purchases, a blow to advocates calling for more strict firearm laws after the mass shootings in Newtown, Conn., late last year.
The measure, the product of intense negotiations between Pennsylvania Republican Sen. Pat Toomey and West Virginia Democratic Sen. Joe Manchin, would have extended background check requirements on gun owners. It needed 60 votes to pass, but failed 54-46.
Democratic Sens. Mark Begich of Alaska, Heidi Heitkamp of North Dakota, Mark Pryor of Arkansas and Max Baucus of Montana voted against it. (Sen. Harry Reid of Nevada switched his vote to no at the end, a procedural tactic that allows him to bring it up for a vote later.) In addition to Toomey, Republicans who supported the amendment were Sens. Mark Kirk of Illinois, Susan Collins of Maine and John McCain of Arizona.
Scores of onlookers filled the Senate gallery to watch the vote. When Vice President Joseph Biden read the final tally and announced the amendment had not passed, Patricia Maisch, who helped disarm the man who shot former Rep. Gabrielle Giffords in Tucson in 2011, yelled, "Shame on you!" before walking out
As late as Wednesday afternoon, the fate of the measure appeared dire for its supporters. Shortly before the vote, Biden tamped down expectations for it to pass.
“This is going to be a close vote, and I can assure you of one thing—we’re going to get this eventually," Biden said during a live video for Google. "If we don’t get this today, we’ll get this eventually.”
The vice president promised the White House and gun-reform supporters will continue to move ahead regardless of Senate action.
Frazzled wrote: On the subject. Senate rejects background checks. They should have known. I announced I liked it, which means its immediately dead. Frazzled is not allowed to have nice things.
Frazzled is used to being beast of burden. Have horrible life, probably horrible death, but at least there is symmetry.*
Senate rejects gun amendment compromise
By Chris Moody, Yahoo! News
Political Reporter
PostsEmailRSSBy Chris Moody, Yahoo! News | The Ticket – 46 mins agoEmail 0Share 535Tweet67Share0PrintThe Senate on Wednesday rejected a bipartisan amendment that would have expanded background checks on gun purchases, a blow to advocates calling for more strict firearm laws after the mass shootings in Newtown, Conn., late last year.
The measure, the product of intense negotiations between Pennsylvania Republican Sen. Pat Toomey and West Virginia Democratic Sen. Joe Manchin, would have extended background check requirements on gun owners. It needed 60 votes to pass, but failed 54-46.
Democratic Sens. Mark Begich of Alaska, Heidi Heitkamp of North Dakota, Mark Pryor of Arkansas and Max Baucus of Montana voted against it. (Sen. Harry Reid of Nevada switched his vote to no at the end, a procedural tactic that allows him to bring it up for a vote later.) In addition to Toomey, Republicans who supported the amendment were Sens. Mark Kirk of Illinois, Susan Collins of Maine and John McCain of Arizona.
Scores of onlookers filled the Senate gallery to watch the vote. When Vice President Joseph Biden read the final tally and announced the amendment had not passed, Patricia Maisch, who helped disarm the man who shot former Rep. Gabrielle Giffords in Tucson in 2011, yelled, "Shame on you!" before walking out
As late as Wednesday afternoon, the fate of the measure appeared dire for its supporters. Shortly before the vote, Biden tamped down expectations for it to pass.
“This is going to be a close vote, and I can assure you of one thing—we’re going to get this eventually," Biden said during a live video for Google. "If we don’t get this today, we’ll get this eventually.”
The vice president promised the White House and gun-reform supporters will continue to move ahead regardless of Senate action.
Was there any additional legislation attached to this or was it just background checks?
daedalus wrote: Kind of interesting how people from other countries fret and panic about the gun possession of Americans though the odds of it affecting them in any significant way are microscopic. I don't understand it.
Your gun possession doesn't affect me one jot. But I am still capable of discussing it and I am interested in matters concerning education because, oddly enough, I work in a school. Arming teachers is a knee jerk response to a danger that schools will likely never face, that of a armed nutter going on a shooting spree. Meanwhile I do know of the daily stresses that teachers frequently face and become buried under, there's well reported cases of teachers flipping out and becoming violent, and I think that generally it's best not to arm them because there's more potential for harm from introducing guns to the school premises than there ever will be from someone going on a rampage.
It's not just the teacher using the gun, there's the simple risk that a gun could fall into the wrong hands. Is this so inconceivable? A few weeks ago a teacher collapsed at my school and had to be taken to hospital. Good job he wasn't armed because that means for several minutes there would be a gun in the classroom and no capable adult. Does that seem safe? People who think that the kids will never notice that a teacher is carrying a gun likely haven't worked in a school. No matter how careful the staff are as a collective, eventually a child will work it out or pick up on it by seeing or hearing something they shouldn't, and then it'll become common knowledge which staff are likely to have a gun.
Frazzled wrote: On the subject. Senate rejects background checks. They should have known. I announced I liked it, which means its immediately dead. Frazzled is not allowed to have nice things.
Frazzled is used to being beast of burden. Have horrible life, probably horrible death, but at least there is symmetry.*
Senate rejects gun amendment compromise
By Chris Moody, Yahoo! News
Political Reporter
PostsEmailRSSBy Chris Moody, Yahoo! News | The Ticket – 46 mins agoEmail 0Share 535Tweet67Share0PrintThe Senate on Wednesday rejected a bipartisan amendment that would have expanded background checks on gun purchases, a blow to advocates calling for more strict firearm laws after the mass shootings in Newtown, Conn., late last year.
The measure, the product of intense negotiations between Pennsylvania Republican Sen. Pat Toomey and West Virginia Democratic Sen. Joe Manchin, would have extended background check requirements on gun owners. It needed 60 votes to pass, but failed 54-46.
Democratic Sens. Mark Begich of Alaska, Heidi Heitkamp of North Dakota, Mark Pryor of Arkansas and Max Baucus of Montana voted against it. (Sen. Harry Reid of Nevada switched his vote to no at the end, a procedural tactic that allows him to bring it up for a vote later.) In addition to Toomey, Republicans who supported the amendment were Sens. Mark Kirk of Illinois, Susan Collins of Maine and John McCain of Arizona.
Scores of onlookers filled the Senate gallery to watch the vote. When Vice President Joseph Biden read the final tally and announced the amendment had not passed, Patricia Maisch, who helped disarm the man who shot former Rep. Gabrielle Giffords in Tucson in 2011, yelled, "Shame on you!" before walking out
As late as Wednesday afternoon, the fate of the measure appeared dire for its supporters. Shortly before the vote, Biden tamped down expectations for it to pass.
“This is going to be a close vote, and I can assure you of one thing—we’re going to get this eventually," Biden said during a live video for Google. "If we don’t get this today, we’ll get this eventually.”
The vice president promised the White House and gun-reform supporters will continue to move ahead regardless of Senate action.
Was there any additional legislation attached to this or was it just background checks?
Was this an actual compromise though, or another "you get to keep most guns, be happy we let you have that" style compromise?
djones520 wrote: There was some quid pro quo in it, but I'm not 100% on it all. Giving cross state border protection for CCW's was a concession made.
Ok that's something I could actually get behind. I've just heard of all these "compromises" in past so I was a little leery of any new ones they tried to pass.
Seaward wrote: I'm fine with the background check thing, but if it had all the bs mag size limit and the like riders attached, I'm glad it got voted down.
Someone said earlier that they wished they could hunt or target shoot in the uk. There's nothing stopping you. I've blown clays to bits with various shotguns, and turned targets to confetti with various rifles. There is a whole host of animals you can splat if that's your bag too. It's just more tightly controlled here.
I have a colleague who is obsessed with hunting. He has a pretty impressive cache of arms, in Scotland, which has the tightest regulation in the uk. Doesn't mean you aren't allowed guns. Just means you have to prove you aren't a screwball.
Personally don't think arming teachers is a good idea, but its your country, and your children.
Seaward wrote: I'm fine with the background check thing, but if it had all the bs mag size limit and the like riders attached, I'm glad it got voted down.
I believe that it did have a ton of "riders" along with it... unless the background check thing was a rider in itself? I'm also glad it failed.
As to schools arming teachers, I rather agree with it, because if every school district went about it the same way the guys in the OP did, I think it stands to reason that the program will work fairly well. Better at least than simply reacting and waiting for law enforcement to show up, and be forced to endure an "eternity" in a bad situation.
Eggs wrote: Someone said earlier that they wished they could hunt or target shoot in the uk. There's nothing stopping you. I've blown clays to bits with various shotguns, and turned targets to confetti with various rifles. There is a whole host of animals you can splat if that's your bag too. It's just more tightly controlled here.
I have a colleague who is obsessed with hunting. He has a pretty impressive cache of arms, in Scotland, which has the tightest regulation in the uk. Doesn't mean you aren't allowed guns. Just means you have to prove you aren't a screwball.
Personally don't think arming teachers is a good idea, but its your country, and your children.
My M&P pistol has a seventeen round mag. Can I use that? (its a pistol).
The "gangbangers in Chicago" aren't shooting up schools or movie theaters with semi-automatic rifles now are they?
They're using pistols for the most part. If you want to make the argument that "This wasn't going to change the crime rates", fine. But don't pretend that you're unaware of the circumstances that led for the push on the attempts for gun control.
The "gangbangers in Chicago" aren't shooting up schools or movie theaters with semi-automatic rifles now are they?
They're using pistols for the most part. If you want to make the argument that "This wasn't going to change the crime rates", fine. But don't pretend that you're unaware of the circumstances that led for the push on the attempts for gun control.
" But don't pretend that you're unaware of the circumstances that led for the push on the attempts for gun control."
Of course I'm not unaware... this is full bore PANDERING on both sides... it's sickening... NOTHING in these bills would've addressed those crimes I've listed...
It puts protection right at the scene and allows a teacher to protect their classroom.
As someone said before, its not perfect but its a pretty good idea. One that can actually do something, not an easily bypassed background check or useless ban on the wrong type of gun.
Sure, he can show disappointment. But saying that "90% of americans wanted this and look the Republicans are just being fethtards" is not only factually wrong, its just more political pandering and it shows he really isn't interested in compromise. This is actually the first speech I've seen Obama give that wasn't amiable to everyone involved.
I could probably count on one hand the number of things 90% of americans could agree on politically and background checks sure ain't one of em.
Grey Templar wrote: It puts protection right at the scene and allows a teacher to protect their classroom.
It also puts guns into schools on individuals who are being trained by those who get constantly lambasted by the people who are embracing this concept.
As someone said before, its not perfect but its a pretty good idea. One that can actually do something, not an easily bypassed background check or useless ban on the wrong type of gun.
It's an absolutely idiotic idea. Do you really think it will make any kind of difference?
If anything, you're going to see schools targeted more because of individuals seeking a guaranteed death. Cops have been receiving training for awhile now that lets them recognize the behavior of individuals who are looking for "suicide by cop".
Do you have any evidence it could make the situation worse?
Because if there's no evidence it can make it worse and a possibility of it making it better than it seems like its worth a try.
And accidental shooting statistics are not evidence that this would be a bad idea. You would need info showing the accidental shooting rates for CCW holders specifically.
Grey Templar wrote: Do you have any evidence it could make the situation worse?
Do you have any evidence that it won't?
I should have said that it "most likely" will cause schools to be targeted more, but I still stand by the statement.
Because if there's no evidence it can make it worse and a possibility of it making it better than it seems like its worth a try.
There's no evidence that it will make it better though. All it has done is add armed teachers to the mix.
Unless the teachers have a military or police background? You're not likely to be reading stories about "Armed teacher stops shooting rampage in its tracks", you're more likely going to read stories about students getting their hands on guns.
Sorry Grey Templar, I agree with you, but you really can't argue that it will make it worse or better. There are pros and cons to each side and only time will tell.
This is me leaving the thread. Dealing with people who think that "guns in schools = safety!" is not my idea of a fun night.
Fair enough, people have opinions that are different than yours. You are welcome to leave the discussion at any time, I don't believe we would be calling your name if you were to leave though.
Kanluwen wrote:But really. This is a bad idea through and through.
And the fact that there were measures to regulate internet and private gun sales defeated is shameful.
In your opinion it's a bad idea. But there is no proof either way. You say it's bad, some say it's good, we'll see what happens.
Also buying guns from a dealer online requires it being shipped to a licensed FFL which will require a background check.
Private sales will still happen, there will just be more paperwork for criminals to bypass and law abiding citizens to deal with in my opinion.
Grey Templar wrote: Do you have any evidence it could make the situation worse?
Do you have any evidence that it won't?
I should have said that it "most likely" will cause schools to be targeted more, but I still stand by the statement.
Because if there's no evidence it can make it worse and a possibility of it making it better than it seems like its worth a try.
There's no evidence that it will make it better though. All it has done is add armed teachers to the mix.
Unless the teachers have a military or police background? You're not likely to be reading stories about "Armed teacher stops shooting rampage in its tracks", you're more likely going to read stories about students getting their hands on guns.
That's why they were trained though. They received a kind of training most CCL holders never have to go through, pretty thorough background checks, and mental screening. They didn't just walk up to 1 out of 3 teachers, say "congrats, you get to carry a gun!" and just hand them a license. They also got a fair bit of training on what to do in situations where they would have to draw their weapons.
If your typical CCL holder isn't a problem, and they go through a 1/3rd of the screening that these teachers got, why do you think a teacher is going to snap?
However, I do agree that just one school having it won't really change anything. For both sides to really prove whether this works or not, you'd need to get it adopted by almost all schools, and make sure that they all have at least a few staff that conceal carry religiously. One school out in the middle of nowhere won't really prove much, unless a particularly stupid gunman decided he wanted to try hard mode and shoot up a school where they shoot back.
Also, that speech Obama gave was very unsettling. I voted for him back when I was younger, and I'm regretting it more than ever. That statement where he says they're not using victims of Newtown as a political tool is what made me the angriest though. If they're not being used, WHY ARE THEY ON STAGE, IN FRAME WHILE YOU SPEAK? The camera even zooms in on a kid crying halfway through the video! How is that "not using them for emotional blackmail"? That and the "90% of all Americans support this" bugged me as well. If they did, you wouldn't have seen a 54-46 split on that Senate vote. For every person writing in against it, you would have had AT LEAST 3 times as many people writing in for it. Sorry but those two things really bugged me.
Indeed, while I didn't vote for Obama I had hoped he was going to be a little different from the typical politicians. And for a while I thought it might be the case, but now the true colors have been shown.
Kanluwen wrote: But really. This is a bad idea through and through.
And the fact that there were measures to regulate internet and private gun sales defeated is shameful.
Internet gun sales are already regulated.
It's people who buy dumbass lines from politicians hook, line, and sinker that really annoy me. You probably think gun stores are just shipping arsenals straight to everyone's house because the anti-gun moonbats decided to lie about things a little.
I did think it was fairly disingenuous to paint a 54-46 vote as some sort of 'cheat' by the minority republicans to kill this. I'm not terribly opposed to the idea of background checks, but saying "A majority of senators voted “yes” to protecting more of our citizens with smarter background checks. But by this continuing distortion of Senate rules, a minority was able to block it from moving forward."
I wasn't aware that that is a 'distortion' of 'senate rules'. I mean seriously. You didn't get enough people to block a filibuster. It happens on both sides. It's a thing. That part especially came off as petulant.
whembly wrote: Uh... wow... Obama is coming off as a petulant child here...
The matter isn't settled, the amendment can be brought for reconsideration by any Senator on the prevailing side; most notably Harry Reid. The man who voiced support for an AWB and voted 'no' on the Manchin-Toomey proposal.
As such, "petulant" isn't exactly an apt descriptor.
MrMoustaffa wrote: That and the "90% of all Americans support this" bugged me as well. If they did, you wouldn't have seen a 54-46 split on that Senate vote. For every person writing in against it, you would have had AT LEAST 3 times as many people writing in for it.
The people doing the voting aren't 90% of Americans. They are politicians, the kinds of people who couldn't organise a knees up in a brewery unless it benefited themselves, in which case it would have been passed so fast it would have made your head spin.
What changes would Manchin-Toomey make to make the regulation of internet gun sales? I mean, I honestly don't know, I've been focused on the fallout from Boston.
The matter isn't settled, the amendment can be brought for reconsideration by any Senator on the prevailing side; most notably Harry Reid. The man who voiced support for an AWB and voted 'no' on the Manchin-Toomey proposal.
As such, "petulant" isn't exactly an apt descriptor.
That's the most optimistic assessment I've seen yet, and I've been reading HuffPo.
This thing is dead. Manchin's looking for a lifeboat - and he'll need one, when the NRA's through with him in West Virginia - and exactly nobody thinks there's a realistic chance this gets through on a second attempt. And for good reason. If you can't get it done now, how on earth do you get it done when people care even less?
MrMoustaffa wrote: That and the "90% of all Americans support this" bugged me as well. If they did, you wouldn't have seen a 54-46 split on that Senate vote. For every person writing in against it, you would have had AT LEAST 3 times as many people writing in for it.
The people doing the voting aren't 90% of Americans. They are politicians, the kinds of people who couldn't organise a knees up in a brewery unless it benefited themselves, in which case it would have been passed so fast it would have made your head spin.
Aint that the truth.
But if 90% of Americans are as supportive of this bill as Obama claimed, wouldn't most of those senators (republican and democrats) vote in favor of the bill to ensure they get reelected, or at least vote for what the people they represented wanted (aka their job)? Especially Democrats in red states who voted against the bill. The fact that there were 46 no votes implies that at least some of those senators think Obama's statistics were a load of bull and felt that if they voted yes, they would not be getting reelected or representing their state's interests. I mean, the bill only needed 6 more votes to pass, surely if it had as much support as he said it did it would have had no problem getting through.
Basically, there's no way this wouldn't have passed if it had 90% support from the public. 50, 60, even 70% sounds believable, but 90%? There's no way. The entire nation would be outraged right now.
And this still isn't over. All it'll take is another horrible event to be used as leverage and this will start all over again. They'll figure out what went wrong this time and tweak it to work even better next time. They took too long to push their advantage this time. Next time they'll make sure to ram it through even faster. But it does look like we've got some breathing room for a while. That's something at least.
dogma wrote: What changes would Manchin-Toomey make to make the regulation of internet gun sales? I mean, I honestly don't know, I've been focused on the fallout from Boston.
No idea. I can't find any information on it beyond "requiring background checks for internet sales." But background checks are already required for internet sales. It makes it seem like you can order a gun off the internet and have it shipped right to your house, which is massively, massively not the case.
I found the numbers in this CNN article interesting, and indicative of why that much-mentioned 90% support is a lot softer than it seems.
"In every Quinnipiac University poll since the Newtown massacre, nationally and in six states, we find overwhelming support, including among gun owners, for universal background checks," said Peter A. Brown, assistant director of the Quinnipiac University Polling Institute. "American voters agree with the National Rifle Association, however, that these background checks could lead someday to confiscation of legally owned guns."
By a 48%-38% margin, voters in a Quinnipiac University survey said that the government could use the information from universal background checks to confiscate legally owned guns. And gun owners believe 53%-34% that the checks could lead to confiscation of legal guns. There's also a partisan divide on the question, with 61% of Republicans, 51% of independents and 32% of Democrats expecting confiscations.
Kanluwen wrote: But really. This is a bad idea through and through.
And the fact that there were measures to regulate internet and private gun sales defeated is shameful.
Internet gun sales are already regulated.
It's people who buy dumbass lines from politicians hook, line, and sinker that really annoy me. You probably think gun stores are just shipping arsenals straight to everyone's house because the anti-gun moonbats decided to lie about things a little.
Indeed thats not accurate. You have to pay for those arsenals. If you buy an arsenal, the wife will make sure you pay. I know. I KNOW!!!
This is me leaving the thread. Dealing with people who think that "guns in schools = safety!" is not my idea of a fun night.
Don't let the door hit your ass on the way out.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ouze wrote: I'd be OK with a bill that simply required background checks at gun shows - let's at least try to get the thing nearly everyone agrees on.
We are in agreement. I am down with a background check for all nonfamily sales, as well as forcing the states to more properly report information for the NCIS database. Unfortunately the bill went too far and was being used as a method of defacto registration with its record keeping provisions. The fact these points weren't dropped were what killed the bill and rightly so.
Second Amendment: Gun ownership restrictions that the president said were supported by 90% of the nation have died in a Senate controlled by his party. Exploiting Newtown is haunting the power grabbers.
Just last week it was a political no-brainer. "Ninety percent of Americans support universal background checks," President Obama asserted yet again. This time he was at the University of Hartford, less than an hour's drive from Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Ct., where 20 students and six staff members were slaughtered just before Christmas. With Obama were many of the Newtown victims' parents.
"How often do 90% of Americans agree on anything?" the president asked, provoking laughter. "And yet, 90% agree on this ... 80% of Republicans, more than 80% of gun owners, more than 70% of NRA households. It is common sense."
The president added that "there is only one thing that can stand in the way of change that just about everybody agrees on, and that's politics in Washington."
He challenged Congress: "If our democracy is working the way it's supposed to, and 90% of the American people agree on something, in the wake of a tragedy you'd think this would not be a heavy lift."
Turns out that our republic is working the way it's supposed to. A Gallup poll asking what's the most important problem facing the country shows why what the president is trying to do is indeed a "heavy lift" — only 4% in both April and March cited "guns/gun control," down from 6% in February.
The "economy in general" at 24%, "unemployment/jobs" at 18%, "dissatisfaction with government" at 16% and "federal budget deficit/federal debt" at 11% all dwarfed concerns about guns. And the problems of "health care," three years after ObamaCare was passed, and "ethical/moral/family decline" are both more worrisome to the public than gun control.
As moderate Democratic senators, especially those facing re-election next year, run away from gun-restriction legislation, it's no mystery what's happened.
As Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., said on Wednesday, "in some cases" the president has used Newtown victims and their families as props. While still grieving, they were flown on Air Force One to lobby Congress, with the president repeatedly insisting -- yelling, in fact -- that "this is not about politics!"
There is something repugnant about the parents of murdered children being exploited several months later. It's especially distasteful when the victims' parents are hardly unanimous on gun control. Note Mark Mattioli, who compellingly called for well-trained, on-site armed guards to protect schoolchildren as a more effective alternative to new gun laws.
Even some of the most pro-gun control Democrats, notably Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California, whose 1994 assault weapons ban failed ignominiously, admit as much. Intensified background checks, she conceded, "would not have prevented the tragedy in Newtown."
Well then, why should Newtown be the rationale to rush such a government power grab into law?
I would bet a bill simply requiring background checks at gunshows would pass.
Maybe instead of trying to cram as much stuff as they can into one bill, and not just this issue but a lot of others as well, they could take small baby steps. Pass simpler laws.
MrMoustaffa wrote: But if 90% of Americans are as supportive of this bill as Obama claimed, wouldn't most of those senators (republican and democrats) vote in favor of the bill to ensure they get reelected, or at least vote for what the people they represented wanted (aka their job)? Especially Democrats in red states who voted against the bill. The fact that there were 46 no votes implies that at least some of those senators think Obama's statistics were a load of bull and felt that if they voted yes, they would not be getting reelected or representing their state's interests. I mean, the bill only needed 6 more votes to pass, surely if it had as much support as he said it did it would have had no problem getting through.
I'm not certain how things work over in Americaland in terms of elections for different levels of government and so on but I am pretty sure that there are some very powerful groups behind the "guns for all" camp with a lot of money and determination to ensure that they can sell guns to anyone and make lots of money and remain powerful groups... erm... I mean so that the rights of Americans are not trampled on by the damn commies!
Compared to much weaker and poorer and less united groups which want to have guns more tightly controlled.
My impression of American politics seems to be that politicians modulate their output based on who pays the fund contributions over what people in their constituencies may feel. There are also a lot of people who would say "yes, I want guns to be controlled" who would have much higher concerns when selecting someone to vote for... as someone else posted above, things like unemployment, the economy, etc.
Basically, there's no way this wouldn't have passed if it had 90% support from the public. 50, 60, even 70% sounds believable, but 90%? There's no way. The entire nation would be outraged right now.
See above, many people may support gun control, but only a few support it very strongly - strongly enough to go out and shout with signs because the bill didn't pass for example.
And this still isn't over. All it'll take is another horrible event to be used as leverage and this will start all over again.
So, another couple of weeks then? A couple of months at the outside?
MrMoustaffa wrote: But if 90% of Americans are as supportive of this bill as Obama claimed, wouldn't most of those senators (republican and democrats) vote in favor of the bill to ensure they get reelected, or at least vote for what the people they represented wanted (aka their job)? Especially Democrats in red states who voted against the bill. The fact that there were 46 no votes implies that at least some of those senators think Obama's statistics were a load of bull and felt that if they voted yes, they would not be getting reelected or representing their state's interests. I mean, the bill only needed 6 more votes to pass, surely if it had as much support as he said it did it would have had no problem getting through.
I'm not certain how things work over in Americaland in terms of elections for different levels of government and so on but I am pretty sure that there are some very powerful groups behind the "guns for all" camp with a lot of money and determination to ensure that they can sell guns to anyone and make lots of money and remain powerful groups... erm... I mean so that the rights of Americans are not trampled on by the damn commies!
Compared to much weaker and poorer and less united groups which want to have guns more tightly controlled.
My impression of American politics seems to be that politicians modulate their output based on who pays the fund contributions over what people in their constituencies may feel. There are also a lot of people who would say "yes, I want guns to be controlled" who would have much higher concerns when selecting someone to vote for... as someone else posted above, things like unemployment, the economy, etc.
That's straight up politics...
The NRA is a powerful group that focuses on primarily the 2nd Amendment.
Just as the ACLU is powerful focusing on civil liberities...
Like Planned Parenthood on abortion...
Like The Tides Foundation on liberal planks...
And so on...
See a pattern? Money talk they say... but, all if ever says to me is "goodbye".
Grey Templar wrote: I would bet a bill simply requiring background checks at gunshows would pass.
Maybe instead of trying to cram as much stuff as they can into one bill, and not just this issue but a lot of others as well, they could take small baby steps. Pass simpler laws.
If there was ever a moment that symbolized the difference between the power of public opinion and the strength of a concerted minority, it came Wednesday when the Senate defeated a bipartisan measure to expand background checks on gun purchases.
By the time the vote took place, the outcome was expected. Nonetheless, the result was stunning, as was made clear by the angry reaction of President Obama, who had invested so much capital on getting gun legislation passed after the shootings in Newtown, Conn., only to see those efforts crushed on the legislation’s first real test.
Obama’s description — “a pretty shameful day for Washington” — captured the moment and summed up the frustrations that many ordinary Americans long have expressed about the capital, which is that the system appears tilted in favor of blocking action on important, if controversial, issues rather than enacting legislation to deal with them.
The proposal to expand background checks to sales at gun shows and on the Internet was sponsored by Sens. Joe Manchin III (D-W.Va.) and Patrick J. Toomey (R-Pa.), two gun rights supporters. It had the support of more than a majority of senators — 54 ayes to 46 nays — and it had the firm backing of the White House.
More significant, perhaps, in a polarized country is that the idea of expanded background checks received overwhelming support across the political spectrum. Nine in 10 Democrats, more than eight in 10 Republicans and independents, and almost nine in 10 Americans who live in households with guns backed the proposal, according to the latest Washington Post-ABC News poll. Nearly all of them said they “strongly” favored the plan.
In the ways of Washington, that still wasn’t enough.
“If you ever wanted a textbook example of intensity trumping preference, this is it,” said Ross K. Baker, a political science professor at Rutgers University. “You could have 100 percent of those polled saying they wanted universal background checks and it would still be defeated. You can’t translate poll results into public policy.”
Before the vote, the White House Web site displayed the message: “Now is the time to do something about gun violence. Let’s make our call so loud it’s impossible to ignore.” But those voices could not overcome the power of the National Rifle Association, the rest of the gun lobby or the procedural obstacles that are common in the Senate.
The NRA mounted a campaign to block the Manchin-Toomey compromise, and other more stringent measures pushed by the president and Vice President Biden, such as a ban on military-style assault rifles and limits on high-capacity ammunition magazines.
The demise of the Manchin-Toomey proposal — the most significant restriction on gun purchases that had any chance of passing — represented a resounding defeat for the president, who had seized on the issue after the massacre in Newtown in December.
It was a defeat as well for the victims’ relatives, men and women who have walked the halls of Congress and spoken out passionately for action. It was a defeat for former congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords (D-Ariz.), who was nearly killed in a shooting in 2011 and who joined in the lobbying effort. They were at the White House with Obama and Biden after the vote, a tableau of hopes crushed.
Wednesday’s vote was also another setback for efforts to find bipartisan accord on difficult issues that have resisted resolution. “The Manchin-Toomey compromise has gone the way of the bipartisan budget commission, the Gang of 6’s deficit reduction plan and the [budget] Supercommittee,” Sean M. Theriault, an associate professor of political science at the University of Texas at Austin, said in an e-mail.
Theriault, the author of the recent book “The Gingrich Senators: The Roots of Partisan Warfare in Congress,” added: “While it provided glimmers of hope that a bipartisan compromise could be forged in the Senate, in the end, it serves as a reinforcement for how dysfunctional Congress has become.”
Few lawmakers were fully happy with the proposal that Manchin and Toomey put together. Liberals thought it didn’t go far enough. There were enough grumbles about it that Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.), who has been a leader in the effort to enact new gun legislation, begged them not to let the perfect be the enemy of the good. In the end, only four Democrats — all from red states — opposed it. Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) voted no for purely procedural reasons.
What sank the amendment, however, was the near-unanimous opposition of Republicans, who argued that the proposed restrictions would infringe on Second Amendment rights. Only four Republicans, including Sen. John McCain (Ariz.), backed the proposal.
There seemed no better opportunity in recent years for Congress to pass new gun-control measures, given the public outcry after the Newtown school shootings, which killed 20 children and six adults. Obama moved quickly, knowing that with each passing day the prospects for congressional action would diminish. He spoke out frequently and tried to rally not just public opinion but public pressure.
Reid, a longtime supporter of the NRA, brought a bill to the floor shorn of the assault-weapons ban and limits on high-capacity magazines, believing that would offer the best opportunity for passage of expanded background checks. Manchin and Toomey worked for weeks to develop a compromise that would diminish the opposition from the NRA and draw more Republicans to its side.
“In many ways, everything was in place,” Baker noted. “Public opinion. Two centrist senators. A full court press by the president. Astute parliamentary measures by Sen. Reid.” Still, it did not happen.
The Post-ABC News poll found that 60 percent of people in gun-owning households said they could support a politician with whom they disagreed on gun control if they agreed with that person on other issues. That was almost the identical percentage as people who live in households without a firearm.
But members of Congress are mindful of who votes and who doesn’t on hot-button issues, and they have seen the NRA’s power in past elections. That and the 60-vote threshold were enough to frustrate the desires of the majority for action.
SilverMK2 wrote: Compared to much weaker and poorer and less united groups which want to have guns more tightly controlled.
The opposite may very well be true, actually. Bloomberg has dumped millions of his own cash into an anti-gun advertising blitz, and his cute little PAC has done the same. The NRA, on the other hand, has just focused on member outreach, as far as I can tell.
There's no question the NRA raised a gakload of money off of the past few months, though.
There is, I suppose, the point to be made also that while being pro-gun is never going to cost you an election, being anti-gun very well can. Manchin's political career just ended, for example, and I suspect Landrieu and that senator from North Carolina will also go down.
See above, many people may support gun control, but only a few support it very strongly - strongly enough to go out and shout with signs because the bill didn't pass for example.
Precisely. 90% of Americans are in favor of it, but they're in favor of it the way they're in favor of having tacos for lunch today.
It's a thorough and excellent overview of guns and gun control... In it, he lays out the reasons why the left calls for gun control, then eviscerates those arguments with facts and reason.
It's a thorough and excellent overview of guns and gun control... In it, he lays out the reasons why the left calls for gun control, then eviscerates those arguments with facts and reason.
It's very easy to, uh, "eviscerate" arguments when nobody's going to edit your blog to ensure you don't make tired fallacy after tired fallacy. Specifically: believing anecdotal evidence trumps statistical analysis, nirvana fallacies and disingenuous conflations. In other words: the usual.
To anyone else: it's not worth it
There is nothing new in it; there are no insights that haven't been hashed out again and again.
It's a thorough and excellent overview of guns and gun control... In it, he lays out the reasons why the left calls for gun control, then eviscerates those arguments with facts and reason.
Good read, thank you
azazel the cat wrote: It's very easy to, uh, "eviscerate" arguments when nobody's going to edit your blog to ensure you don't make tired fallacy after tired fallacy. Specifically: believing anecdotal evidence trumps statistical analysis, nirvana fallacies and disingenuous conflations. In other words: the usual.
To anyone else: it's not worth it
There is nothing new in it; there are no insights that haven't been hashed out again and again.
Unlike many others he at least left the comments open so people with opposing views could rebut his position. Of course I'm sure you'll be able to deconstruct his argument, right?
It's a thorough and excellent overview of guns and gun control... In it, he lays out the reasons why the left calls for gun control, then eviscerates those arguments with facts and reason.
Good read, thank you
You're welcome!
azazel the cat wrote: It's very easy to, uh, "eviscerate" arguments when nobody's going to edit your blog to ensure you don't make tired fallacy after tired fallacy. Specifically: believing anecdotal evidence trumps statistical analysis, nirvana fallacies and disingenuous conflations. In other words: the usual.
To anyone else: it's not worth it
There is nothing new in it; there are no insights that haven't been hashed out again and again.
Unlike many others he at least left the comments open so people with opposing views could rebut his position. Of course I'm sure you'll be able to deconstruct his argument, right?
I don't think he can... hence why he blanked it with "tired fallacy after tired fallacy" statement.
I also thought it was relevant to the OP's post as THAT author states that "armed teachers" ALREADY exists in Utah. (did you see that Az and Kan?).
I did a google-fu search, and not once have I seen a teacher snapping by pulling out their CCW, or students getting their hands on it, or even "gasps" an attempt to shootup the schools.
whembly wrote: I did a google-fu search, and not once have I seen a teacher snapping by pulling out their CCW, or students getting their hands on it, or even "gasps" an attempt to shootup the schools.
I did like the point he made that with CCW laws going back decades we have yet to see the Wild West shoot out over minor disputes
Okay... but you can't legislate or have policies on stupidity.
I know. If we're going to pass laws for everyone of these "what if's" then we'd better not let anymore Saudi's into the country, because one time they flew some planes into buildings. Don't let anymore Chechnyan's in, because one time they blew up a marathon.
Those are at least things that have happened before. Instead we have people screaming about things that haven't even happened.
And there's never been a case of a monkey shooting a tourist, but I'm certainly not going to give the Chimpanzees at the Houston Zoo a bunch of loaded guns!
whembly wrote: I did a google-fu search, and not once have I seen a teacher snapping by pulling out their CCW, or students getting their hands on it, or even "gasps" an attempt to shootup the schools.
I did like the point he made that with CCW laws going back decades we have yet to see the Wild West shoot out over minor disputes
Is this dispute minor enough? It's based on being cut-off in traffic; NOT self-defense.The only reason this isn't the Wild West Shootout you're thinking of if because the kids that beat his ass aren't carrying. NSFW due to language.
whembly wrote:I don't think he can... hence why he blanked it with "tired fallacy after tired fallacy" statement.
I also thought it was relevant to the OP's post as THAT author states that "armed teachers" ALREADY exists in Utah. (did you see that Az and Kan?).
I did a google-fu search, and not once have I seen a teacher snapping by pulling out their CCW, or students getting their hands on it, or even "gasps" an attempt to shootup the schools.
Again, Wembly, I don't think I should need to repeat myself every single time you find a new blog post with the same old information. But I'll do it just once for you here:
1. He comes up with numbers like "average number of people shot in mass shootings stopped by officers versus civilians" without citing a source for his numbers. That means this numbers are bs. Additionally, he lists "mass shootings" at 2.5 when stopped by civilians; implying he has no idea if it would've been a mass shooting or not. If that's the case, then every time the police take down an armed suspect, that should count as a potential mass shooting that was prevented.
2. In the same paragraph, he implies causality without any evidence to support this alleged claim.
3. He makes the claim that every school in Utah has at least one capable, smart, blah blah handjob blah blah teacher with a CCW. He forgets to say how many schools have incompeted idiots with power fantasies, however. One does not preclude the other; it's very possible to have two competent CCW holders and two dumbasses like the gentleman shown in the linked video above.
4. The majority of his entire argument is based on the rhetoric of "the only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun" which is assinine; I've adressed this so often I'm sick of it. An example of his base assumption is found in the ridiculous "gun free zones are hunting preserves" line.
5. He lists 4 incidents that made the news, wherein his purpose is to show that the effects of not being a gun-free zone are better than not. Now, I hate these stupid "I'll-list-anecdotal-evidence-that-fits-my-own-personal-narrative" arguments, but this one is doubly hilarious because he not only pre-emptively starts crying about the librul media bias but he also contradicts himself in two ways:
A) He mentions an incident in Texas where the shooter was killed by an off-duty cop. An off-duty cop is not a civilian; so there goes his first few paragraphs about how the police aren't enough to respond in time and we need armed citizens.
B) He mentions how China is a gun-free country and someone went on a rampage with a knife; yet he fails to notice that there were zero fatalities.
C) The incident he describes in Oregon again fails due to the fallacy of implied causation. He has no proof that the shooter killed himself because he was confronted. In many "mass" shootings, the shooter targets one or two specific people then takes their own life (this was mentioned in an article I cited in another thread; I don't want to dig it up again, but it's in my post history)
D) While he hasn't contradicted himself on the Connecticut example, that's a solitary example. For every one he pulls up, I can pull up one that shows the exact opposite. That's why anecdotal evidence is valueless.
I can keep going, but I really don't want to as I've picked apart his argument quite a bit just to prove how easy it is, and I'm only at the Librul Media Conpiracy!!1! part of his giant article. Quite frankly, I think that when I pointed out the exact problems with his article for you, you couldn't easily used that as a lens with which to re-read the article and see exactly why it's the equivalent of Rush Limbaugh talking about poor people or Pat Roberts talking about homosexuals: either you already believe everything this guy says and this is porn to you, or you already disagree with some or most of what this guy says and this is a really tired and played out rerun.
azazel the cat wrote: Is this dispute minor enough? It's based on being cut-off in traffic; NOT self-defense.The only reason this isn't the Wild West Shootout you're thinking of if because the kids that beat his ass aren't carrying. NSFW due to language.
So one dispute now = Wild West type carrying of hand guns? And you're the person who complained about anecdotes vs evidence?
kronk wrote: And there's never been a case of a monkey shooting a tourist, but I'm certainly not going to give the Chimpanzees at the Houston Zoo a bunch of loaded guns!
Hey! Just because they are hairy and throw poo doesn't mean they are chimps. They could be my inlaws down for a visit.
azazel the cat wrote: Is this dispute minor enough? It's based on being cut-off in traffic; NOT self-defense.The only reason this isn't the Wild West Shootout you're thinking of if because the kids that beat his ass aren't carrying. NSFW due to language.
So one dispute now = Wild West type carrying of hand guns? And you're the person who complained about anecdotes vs evidence?
I noticed that too...
Azazel... you said your piece, I've said mine.
That doesn't mean you're right or I'm right... we both have opinions. I can provide counter arguments all day long and it'll be a circular argument till kingdom come...
Having said that, you can stay on your side of the 49th parallel.
azazel the cat wrote: Again, Wembly, I don't think I should need to repeat myself every single time you find a new blog post with the same old information. But I'll do it just once for you here:
1. He comes up with numbers like "average number of people shot in mass shootings stopped by officers versus civilians" without citing a source for his numbers. That means this numbers are bs. Additionally, he lists "mass shootings" at 2.5 when stopped by civilians; implying he has no idea if it would've been a mass shooting or not. If that's the case, then every time the police take down an armed suspect, that should count as a potential mass shooting that was prevented.
So how many mass shootings have CCWs stopped then? Its always going to be difficult to nail down an exact number specifically because they are often stopped in their infancy before the casualty rate is as severe as mass shootings that the Police stop. Or do you have a problem with extrapolating what could very easily have happened based on prior events - armed perpetrator in a gun free zone, Police not able to be on the scene for some time giving the perpetrator ample time to cause harm (Aurora, Columbine etc.). You are asking him to prove the impossible, whilst ignoring a reasonable line of argument
azazel the cat wrote: 2. In the same paragraph, he implies causality without any evidence to support this alleged claim.
So you're disputing the fact that most mass shooting incidents don't happen in gun free zones? Can you give us the breakdown of mass shootings in gun free areas vs areas that permit concealed carry?
azazel the cat wrote: 3. He makes the claim that every school in Utah has at least one capable, smart, blah blah handjob blah blah teacher with a CCW. He forgets to say how many schools have incompeted idiots with power fantasies, however. One does not preclude the other; it's very possible to have two competent CCW holders and two dumbasses like the gentleman shown in the linked video above.
And how many schools (a) have incompetent idiots with power fantasies, (b) how many of these incompetent idiots with power fantasies have CCW permits, and have a firearm in school? You keep asking for evidence and figures but you lack them yourself. You're taking a short clip of one incident, with very few details that would give it more context, and using it to extrapolate it to those carrying CCWs in a school. That incident showed what can happen in a situation where an argument escalates. Had there been nothing but tire irons, then that would have been the weapon used. That scenario is different to what the author talked about which was a mass shooting scenario - its not an argument escalating to violence. Its someone with a weapon and malice aforethought coming in to wreck havoc on innocent people.
Did you also miss the background checks and the training that the CCW teachers went through?
azazel the cat wrote: 4. The majority of his entire argument is based on the rhetoric of "the only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun" which is assinine; I've adressed this so often I'm sick of it. An example of his base assumption is found in the ridiculous "gun free zones are hunting preserves" line.
So how do you stop someone with a gun, lots of ammunition and a desire to kill as many people as possible? Will harsh language suffice? You claim that the line is ridiculous after he gives many examples of shooting incidents in gun free zones, yet you don't give any figure that refutes his claim. Again, can you please show us the difference in mass shooting incidents that happened in gun free zones compared to zones that permit concealed carry.
azazel the cat wrote: 5. He lists 4 incidents that made the news, wherein his purpose is to show that the effects of not being a gun-free zone are better than not. Now, I hate these stupid "I'll-list-anecdotal-evidence-that-fits-my-own-personal-narrative" arguments, but this one is doubly hilarious because he not only pre-emptively starts crying about the librul media bias but he also contradicts himself in two ways:
Agreed that he could have picked better examples. But concerning the media, was he railing against the "librul media bias", or the fact that what they routinely say concerning firearms is inaccurate (no pun intended)?
azazel the cat wrote: A) He mentions an incident in Texas where the shooter was killed by an off-duty cop. An off-duty cop is not a civilian; so there goes his first few paragraphs about how the police aren't enough to respond in time and we need armed citizens.
An off duty cop is not an ordinary civilian, but by the same token that ordinary cop was off duty and so his prompt response isn't enough to negate the fact that the police aren't there in enough time to respond.
azazel the cat wrote: C) The incident he describes in Oregon again fails due to the fallacy of implied causation. He has no proof that the shooter killed himself because he was confronted. In many "mass" shootings, the shooter targets one or two specific people then takes their own life (this was mentioned in an article I cited in another thread; I don't want to dig it up again, but it's in my post history)
You say that he has no evidence for his position, other than based on previous mass shootings and the fact that he did indeed shoot himself after being confronted, yet you also provide no evidence to show that he killed himself because he shot the people he was after and that was enough.
azazel the cat wrote: I can keep going, but I really don't want to as I've picked apart his argument quite a bit just to prove how easy it is, and I'm only at the Librul Media Conpiracy!!1! part of his giant article. Quite frankly, I think that when I pointed out the exact problems with his article for you, you couldn't easily used that as a lens with which to re-read the article and see exactly why it's the equivalent of Rush Limbaugh talking about poor people or Pat Roberts talking about homosexuals: either you already believe everything this guy says and this is porn to you, or you already disagree with some or most of what this guy says and this is a really tired and played out rerun.
In that article he doesn't mention "Librul Media Conpiracy", you do. In fact by doing so you prove his point later on about being vilified to shut down the debate. He is concerned with the inaccuracy and double standards in the media. having watched plenty of news coverage from various incidents over the years to say that the average journalist's factual knowledge of guns (compared to dramatic representations) is pretty minimal. Why do you think its a running joke that to a journalist every gun is an AK-47? He doesn't say that this is organised, or that someone is funding them. You have though. You then go on to ignore everything else he has to say concerning the media and its coverage. You ignored that because you could dismiss it as conspiracy theory.
Having read the article here's my take on it;
I have to say that I agree with him on a lot of points;
- People opposing gun control don't seem to know what the law is, but they can distort the wording of the Second Amendement and dream up any number of nightmare scenarios
- He is absolutely right about gun control being a lecture and not a discussion. When you set out your opposition to something with mis-information, "Won't somebody think of the children" or trying to vilify the other side then you aren't interested in an honest talk. And frankly Obama showed that when he talked about the Constitution limiting his powers before the vote and after he was defeated he tried to shame those who support people enjoying their legal right
- I absolutely agree on the "No Guns Allowed" areas too. Someone has a weapon (possibly illegally) and the intent to commit heinous crimes, will a sign really stop them? If they were effective then we wouldn't have so many mass shootings there?
- I agree with the media bias and how they attempt to characterise legal gun owners as would-be-mass-murderers, or apologists for them. Also most times when a pundit opens his/her mouth on the issue of gun control (s)he very often shows complete ignorance for how guns work, the legislation etc. and sensationalises it, often before the bodies are cold. And don't get me started on Piers Morgan Those committing mass shootings shouldn't be given their 15 minutes of fame so they can show they world that they aren't losers/their grievance was legitimate/whatever pathetic excuse they had, but that means that the news gets less views, their websites get less traffic etc. so its in their interests to not only publish every minute detail of the perpetrator's life but to then have their talking heads try to analyse it in painstaking detail
- Mental health issues should be left to the professionals. Its nice to see someone who knows where the limits of his expertise are.
- Gun control laws. Yup, the "we must do something, and quickly before people think too hard" brigade are just political vultures trying to push an agenda after a tragedy and not interested in rational debate. I can't disagree with him on anything there, especially pointing out that the mass shootings from CCW holders has never happened. If these advocates think that people's legal rights should be infringed because a small number of people break the law then I hope they don't drive or own a car. After all, think of the carnage caused by drink drivers.
- Assault weapons he is absolutely right about. The media and gun control/ban advocates can't define what an assault rifle is, other than a scary looking tacticool black rifle that is functionally identical to any other semi-automatic rifle. In which case this reaction is a moral panic, its not addressing a serious issue in a meaningful way.
- I hate the argument that "Well the 2nd Amendment was only supposed to cover muskets". You mean muskets which were the pinnacle of technology in their day? Those muskets?
Those opposed to guns and advocating for gun control seem to forget a very basic fact - the people who carry out these mass shootings are already intent on breaking the law, often will illegally held weapons and/or magazines. They are not likely to be dissuaded by gun control which punishes people who legally hold firearms. Every terrorist group in Northern Ireland was legally prevented from getting guns. Guess what, they got them by the boat load - from Libya, South Africa, Syria, Eastern Europe
I honestly think that some people seem to believe that if they repeat the same tired old arguments time and time again then by attrition, not logic or reason, they'll wear down or vilify their opponents enough until they cave in. I'm sorry that some people don't understand guns, gun law and how they function. However that isn't a reason to ban or restrict something because you're ignorant. I lived in a country where violence (often with firearms) was common, but I went out of my way to learn some things about firearms so it was less abstract.
- Gun control laws. Yup, the "we must do something, and quickly before people think too hard" brigade are just political vultures trying to push an agenda after a tragedy and not interested in rational debate. I can't disagree with him on anything there, especially pointing out that the mass shootings from CCW holders has never happened. If these advocates think that people's legal rights should be infringed because a small number of people break the law then I hope they don't drive or own a car. After all, think of the carnage caused by drink drivers.
- Assault weapons he is absolutely right about. The media and gun control/ban advocates can't define what an assault rifle is, other than a scary looking tacticool black rifle that is functionally identical to any other semi-automatic rifle. In which case this reaction is a moral panic, its not addressing a serious issue in a meaningful way.
- I hate the argument that "Well the 2nd Amendment was only supposed to cover muskets". You mean muskets which were the pinnacle of technology in their day? Those muskets?
Those opposed to guns and advocating for gun control seem to forget a very basic fact - the people who carry out these mass shootings are already intent on breaking the law, often will illegally held weapons and/or magazines. They are not likely to be dissuaded by gun control which punishes people who legally hold firearms. Every terrorist group in Northern Ireland was legally prevented from getting guns. Guess what, they got them by the boat load - from Libya, South Africa, Syria, Eastern Europe
If anyone recalls that shooting at the Oregon mall? Depending on the source you look at, the shooter was stopped when a legally carrying CCW holder merely pointed his pistol at the guy (Mr. CCW told news reporters that he felt he didn't have a clear enough shot to take down the actual shooter). Apparently, the shooter saw an armed person pointing a weapon at him, he turned ran a bit, and then shot himself, of course we'll never really know if this was due to facing death by someone else or not, but it definitely makes the case that honest and good people with CCWs CAN make a difference if placed in the situation.
I recently read an opinion piece on Fox news's website (yeah i know... i was bored at work with tons of time to kill) where the author basically boiled the gun control/pro-gun argument down and strongly suggested that if each side were less inflammatory (he used Jim Carrey's online presence, youtube videos, etc. you can find it yourself) towards each other, then an actual debate could happen. But this is also endemic of American Politics of today.
Cheesecat wrote: Did anyone think that Joe Biden looked uncomfortable in the vid?
Probably heart broken that his shotgun advice will now go unheeded
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ensis Ferrae wrote: If anyone recalls that shooting at the Oregon mall? Depending on the source you look at, the shooter was stopped when a legally carrying CCW holder merely pointed his pistol at the guy (Mr. CCW told news reporters that he felt he didn't have a clear enough shot to take down the actual shooter). Apparently, the shooter saw an armed person pointing a weapon at him, he turned ran a bit, and then shot himself, of course we'll never really know if this was due to facing death by someone else or not, but it definitely makes the case that honest and good people with CCWs CAN make a difference if placed in the situation.
Thanks for the extra info on the Oregon mall.
Ensis Ferrae wrote: I recently read an opinion piece on Fox news's website (yeah i know... i was bored at work with tons of time to kill) where the author basically boiled the gun control/pro-gun argument down and strongly suggested that if each side were less inflammatory (he used Jim Carrey's online presence, youtube videos, etc. you can find it yourself) towards each other, then an actual debate could happen. But this is also endemic of American Politics of today.
I think this is the crux of the matter. Recently we aren't seeing any sort of middle ground, which gives an all or nothing feel to proceedings. That polarises the debate and society further and further.
Cheesecat wrote: Did anyone think that Joe Biden looked uncomfortable in the vid?
His facial expression was the laughing stock of the work center. He couldn't have done any worse of an acting job on that one. That was the hardest frown I've seen in my life.
Ensis Ferrae wrote: I recently read an opinion piece on Fox news's website (yeah i know... i was bored at work with tons of time to kill) where the author basically boiled the gun control/pro-gun argument down and strongly suggested that if each side were less inflammatory (he used Jim Carrey's online presence, youtube videos, etc. you can find it yourself) towards each other, then an actual debate could happen. But this is also endemic of American Politics of today.
I think this is the crux of the matter. Recently we aren't seeing any sort of middle ground, which gives an all or nothing feel to proceedings. That polarises the debate and society further and further.
And sadly, I personally think that politicians in today's climate would be committing virtual seppuku for compromising on just about any major issue.
azazel the cat wrote: Is this dispute minor enough? It's based on being cut-off in traffic; NOT self-defense.The only reason this isn't the Wild West Shootout you're thinking of if because the kids that beat his ass aren't carrying. NSFW due to language.
So one dispute now = Wild West type carrying of hand guns? And you're the person who complained about anecdotes vs evidence?
You said that the wild west -style shootouts never happen over minor incidents. I gave you a piece of video evidence to directly prove you wrong. And now you are upset that I didn't show you a thousand videos.
Dreadclaw69 wrote:
azazel the cat wrote: 2. In the same paragraph, he implies causality without any evidence to support this alleged claim.
So you're disputing the fact that most mass shooting incidents don't happen in gun free zones? Can you give us the breakdown of mass shootings in gun free areas vs areas that permit concealed carry?
And now you appear to be smugly asking me to prove a negative, wherein the burden lies on the article author to prove the positive.
I'm always interested in an interesting debate, but I'm tired of this rerun and have no patience to explain in even more simplistic terms what a logical fallacy is. I never p[lanned to convince you of anything you don't want to accept; but I do enjoy creating the spectacle for the audience. Since I have already done that, I am now through engaging with you in this thread, as it is clearly no longer worthy of my time. Feel free to reply if you want the last word on it.
azazel the cat wrote: You said that the wild west -style shootouts never happen over minor incidents. I gave you a piece of video evidence to directly prove you wrong. And now you are upset that I didn't show you a thousand videos.
That's not what I said. I was echoing the words of the author of the article that you attempted to debunk when he said that CCW permits have not created the Wild West culture with weapons being drawn over minor disputes that some people feared. One example does not show a trend, no matter how much you may want it to. So unless you can show actual evidence that what the video showed is a growing and significant trend then you are using anecdotes as evidence in spite of your obvious disdain for such conduct. Also as previously stated that video shows a very different circumstance compared to the carrying of CCWs by trained and monitored teachers.
azazel the cat wrote: 2. In the same paragraph, he implies causality without any evidence to support this alleged claim.
So you're disputing the fact that most mass shooting incidents don't happen in gun free zones? Can you give us the breakdown of mass shootings in gun free areas vs areas that permit concealed carry?
And now you appear to be smugly asking me to prove a negative, wherein the burden lies on the article author to prove the positive.
I'm not smugly asking you to do anything. What I'm asking for is a breakdown of shootings in gun free zones vs zones where CCWs are permitted. That is not asking you to prove a negative, its asking you to back you your assertion with figures especially after you castigated another for not having figures to substantiate his position.
azazel the cat wrote: I'm always interested in an interesting debate, but I'm tired of this rerun and have no patience to explain in even more simplistic terms what a logical fallacy is. I never p[lanned to convince you of anything you don't want to accept; but I do enjoy creating the spectacle for the audience. Since I have already done that, I am now through engaging with you in this thread, as it is clearly no longer worthy of my time. Feel free to reply if you want the last word on it.
I love these attempts at leaving a thread after an undignified scramble for the moral high ground.
Shame that your interesting debate recently has been to smear someone with who you disagree by trying to label him a conspiracy theorist, then by mis-representing an argument (as seen above) and hypocritically attacking someone for not giving evidence and then refusing to provide any figures yourself and attempting to wriggle out of it, as well as engaging in your own logical fallacies and deliberate distortions of facts in an attempt to substantiate your own argument.
So please cling to whatever illusions you have of moral supremacy and and cries of "Are you not entertained" while you are creating a spectacle for the audience
Let's say you have a school that still follows the "gun free zone" rules has a mass shooter in the school, but a teacher that is otherwise legally carrying (as in, they'd be completely legal to conceal carry if not for physically being in the school), steps in and stops the shooting event with minimal casualties.
Would this teacher be fired for breaking rules (until the media circus forced the 'hero' to maintain their job), or would they be overall hailed as a hero, and more places look at taking a similar action/legalizing the concealed carry by teachers and administrators?
Let's say you have a school that still follows the "gun free zone" rules has a mass shooter in the school, but a teacher that is otherwise legally carrying (as in, they'd be completely legal to conceal carry if not for physically being in the school), steps in and stops the shooting event with minimal casualties.
Would this teacher be fired for breaking rules (until the media circus forced the 'hero' to maintain their job), or would they be overall hailed as a hero, and more places look at taking a similar action/legalizing the concealed carry by teachers and administrators?
Almost certainly fired. Maybe, maybe if they prevented all casualties whilst say being wounded themselves they might get enough public support to weather the storm, but otherwise I can't see them keeping their jobs in violation of school rules and the law.
Let's say you have a school that still follows the "gun free zone" rules has a mass shooter in the school, but a teacher that is otherwise legally carrying (as in, they'd be completely legal to conceal carry if not for physically being in the school), steps in and stops the shooting event with minimal casualties.
Would this teacher be fired for breaking rules (until the media circus forced the 'hero' to maintain their job), or would they be overall hailed as a hero, and more places look at taking a similar action/legalizing the concealed carry by teachers and administrators?
Don't recall Joel Myrick being fired after a very similar instance to what you describe....
But that's also in the south, and not the "Civilized" parts of the country, where appropriate responses to murderers and predators are considered barbaric and unworkable.
Let's say you have a school that still follows the "gun free zone" rules has a mass shooter in the school, but a teacher that is otherwise legally carrying (as in, they'd be completely legal to conceal carry if not for physically being in the school), steps in and stops the shooting event with minimal casualties.
Would this teacher be fired for breaking rules (until the media circus forced the 'hero' to maintain their job), or would they be overall hailed as a hero, and more places look at taking a similar action/legalizing the concealed carry by teachers and administrators?
I know that in northern Indiana something like that did happen. A pharmacist drew his CCW weapon during a robbery when staff were allegedly being taken to a back room to be killed. His actions prevented any deaths and stopped the robbery, but because the company had a no firearms rule he was fired.
Let's say you have a school that still follows the "gun free zone" rules has a mass shooter in the school, but a teacher that is otherwise legally carrying (as in, they'd be completely legal to conceal carry if not for physically being in the school), steps in and stops the shooting event with minimal casualties.
Would this teacher be fired for breaking rules (until the media circus forced the 'hero' to maintain their job), or would they be overall hailed as a hero, and more places look at taking a similar action/legalizing the concealed carry by teachers and administrators?
I know that in northern Indiana something like that did happen. A pharmacist drew his CCW weapon during a robbery when staff were allegedly being taken to a back room to be killed. His actions prevented any deaths and stopped the robbery, but because the company had a no firearms rule he was fired.
That was probably due to the company's insurance policy...
Let's say you have a school that still follows the "gun free zone" rules has a mass shooter in the school, but a teacher that is otherwise legally carrying (as in, they'd be completely legal to conceal carry if not for physically being in the school), steps in and stops the shooting event with minimal casualties.
Would this teacher be fired for breaking rules (until the media circus forced the 'hero' to maintain their job), or would they be overall hailed as a hero, and more places look at taking a similar action/legalizing the concealed carry by teachers and administrators?
I know that in northern Indiana something like that did happen. A pharmacist drew his CCW weapon during a robbery when staff were allegedly being taken to a back room to be killed. His actions prevented any deaths and stopped the robbery, but because the company had a no firearms rule he was fired.
That was probably due to the company's insurance policy...
Most people would rather be fired than dead. I know I would.
I would seriously perfer armed LEO or NGMP's in civ's or dress unifrom (lot freaking cheaper) I perfer not to have the teachers armed unless prioir service or LEO. Might have to reprogram the shooting style of the LEO to track the target to the ground using center mass. This is an experience I do not want teachers to confront. Teachers are not mentally prepared or condition to take a human life. 2 copper worth thrown in
The infamous "pause" would more likely happen due he/she are about to opt a human out. Ever wonder why targets are human shaped? To condition the mind and the eye with similiar sight picture to remove the hesitation
Grey Templar wrote: I think any sane person whose life is being threatened is perfectly capable of killing someone.
Not everyone can go out and deliberately seek to end a life but when its them or someone else its a different story.
I think he was stating that a teacher would not be mentally prepared to deal with the aftermath of taking the life of a student, which is a very valid point. While they may be perfectly capable of pulling the trigger to save the rest of the class/school's lives, that teacher would have to deal with the fact that they (potentially) took the life of a student. If it was a random guy off the street, this wouldn't be quite as big a concern, but if a teacher had had that kid in class before, and knew them personally, it could be an extremely traumatic experience, which is something I hadn't thought about.
Taking a human life is a traumatic experience in general. It's not something to be considered lightly. If you're going to carry any weapon, or train yourself to fight with your body in defense of yourself or others that chance of having to take life from others is the first thing you need to look yourself in the mirror over.
Grey Templar wrote: I think any sane person whose life is being threatened is perfectly capable of killing someone.
Not everyone can go out and deliberately seek to end a life but when its them or someone else its a different story.
I think he was stating that a teacher would not be mentally prepared to deal with the aftermath of taking the life of a student, which is a very valid point. While they may be perfectly capable of pulling the trigger to save the rest of the class/school's lives, that teacher would have to deal with the fact that they (potentially) took the life of a student. If it was a random guy off the street, this wouldn't be quite as big a concern, but if a teacher had had that kid in class before, and knew them personally, it could be an extremely traumatic experience, which is something I hadn't thought about.
Yeah, and that would be horrible, but I think its better than the experience of having your current class get killed in front of you.
as if cops/GI's are supermen with the super power to know how to responsably use a firearm.
If armed guards are such a bad idea for protection,
why does every bank ever protect its money with guns?
why does every VIP (including obama) protect themselves and their kids with guns (or armed guards with guns)?
whats shocking is not the states so called "lax gun laws"
what is shocking is that so many people think that the government, supposedly made up of "we the people"
should have more rights, and is more competent, then "we the people"
I for one think it is only common sense,
we protect banks $ with armed guards,
we protect obamas kids with armed guards,
even in england where guns are banned, we do the same,
(side note, as a 1st gen immigrant from england, they have seen no real benifit from banning civilian gun ownership, most of my relatives who still live there think it got worse after)
so why not protect "normal" peoples lives/assets with them?
oh right, normal people cant handle guns, unless of course we are forceing them into the military to fight wars they dont want to of course.
if people dont like guns, dont buy them,
if you dont like armed guards protecting your kids,
put them in a different school,
FYI average canadians, who dont have criminal records, can own guns,
and we can get carry permits (if we are "special" and connected enough of course)
yet at least half the canucks dont even know that, and tout the lower canadian firearms murder rate as proof that not allowing guns works.
despite still being allowed guns...
everyday plenty of people protect themselves, their families, their possestions, with guns, and most often without fireing a shot.
at least two shootings have been prevented this last year alone by armed people, it does work, it will work, and at least its an actual deterant as opposed to hanging another "gun free" sign
may as well make all the kids wear "dont shoot me please" shirts and call it a day if telling criminals what to do works all of a sudden.
even in england where guns are banned, we do the same,
(side note, as a 1st gen immigrant from england, they have seen no real benifit from banning civilian gun ownership, most of my relatives who still live there think it got worse after)
Well your relatives don't know gak. How did it get 'worse after'? After what? Try to be a bit more coherent, I know it must be hard not to write entirely in soundbites with much use of line spacing and lack of punctuation.
Preventing gun ownership has done the UK a lot of good. Gun crime is very low here, because guns just aren't that common even among criminals. As for the rest, I can't be bothered.
Well your relatives don't know gak. How did it get 'worse after'? After what? Try to be a bit more coherent, I know it must be hard not to write entirely in soundbites with much use of line spacing and lack of punctuation.
Preventing gun ownership has done the UK a lot of good. Gun crime is very low here, because guns just aren't that common even among criminals. As for the rest, I can't be bothered.
it got much worse,
all the gang types still get guns,
and now know that the good people are all disarmed.
OBS your goal is to prevent gun ownership, not prevent innocent deaths.
typical "I can have my rights, you can have the rights I like, but not the ones I dont"
ignoring the very real benifits of gun ownership is just that, completly ignoring the benifits.
cars are more dangerous then guns, and kill far more people, far more often.
we could limit auto useage to only the official types (ie buses, cabs only, no private autos)
and save more lives then any gun ban, but that would be ignoring the benifits of private auto ownership
but when someone dies from a car crash, its not a big deal, no one questions the need for people to own cars and its not the cars fault.
when someone dies from a gunshot, its
the end of the world, and means no one can have guns because someone who obtained gun illegally already, and already broke laws against MURDER would have followed some yet unwritten law had it only been written.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote: Son I may have to make you an honorary Texan. How do you feel about something called "queso?"
spicy food is all that keeps me alive in my igloo during the winter
in Canada we have 9 different words for "pass the beer, chips, and queso eh"
motyak wrote: Pretty much cutting off guns worked in Australia...
Only because you didn't have all that many guns in the first place.
Its like saying we in the US have successfully reduced the incidence of Lion mauling fatalities to nearly 0 by saying you can't have a pet lion, when really the reason is there simply aren't very many lions here.
Well your relatives don't know gak. How did it get 'worse after'? After what? Try to be a bit more coherent, I know it must be hard not to write entirely in soundbites with much use of line spacing and lack of punctuation.
Preventing gun ownership has done the UK a lot of good. Gun crime is very low here, because guns just aren't that common even among criminals. As for the rest, I can't be bothered.
it got much worse, all the gang types still get guns, and now know that the good people are all disarmed.
OBS your goal is to prevent gun ownership, not prevent innocent deaths.
typical "I can have my rights, you can have the rights I like, but not the ones I dont"
ignoring the very real benifits of gun ownership is just that, completly ignoring the benifits.
cars are more dangerous then guns, and kill far more people, far more often.
we could limit auto useage to only the official types (ie buses, cabs only, no private autos)
and save more lives then any gun ban, but that would be ignoring the benifits of private auto ownership
but when someone dies from a car crash, its not a big deal, no one questions the need for people to own cars and its not the cars fault.
when someone dies from a gunshot, its the end of the world, and means no one can have guns because someone who obtained gun illegally already, and already broke laws against MURDER would have followed some yet unwritten law had it only been written.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote: Son I may have to make you an honorary Texan. How do you feel about something called "queso?"
spicy food is all that keeps me alive in my igloo during the winter
in Canada we have 9 different words for "pass the beer, chips, and queso eh"
Well the thing about cars is as follows...
You take a test to own a car, you are registered licence holder, oblliged to hold insurance, and be registered with the DVLA, and if you were to suffer a medical ailment, stroke, seizures, blackouts etc your licence is removed.
Also a car is a tool, its a method a transport, it takes the kids to school, or people to work... thats its function. A gun has 1 purpose... to kill things, it has no other function. Its used to hunt and protect and unfortunately can be used in crime to inflict harm.
As for the claim that the UK gun crime got worse... rubbish... absolute rubbish. The only gun crime involves criminal gangs and illegal weapons aside from a few isolated incidents.
Unlike the US british gun control would/did not take guns from the hands of the people, because the people did not own firearms to begin with, shop keepers didnt keep them under counters, or civilians sleep with one in bedside cabinet.
It didnt get worse... in fact at worst no noticable difference, at best restricted sales in an effort to ensure Dunblane never happened again.
The use of firearms in the commission of crime is going down in the UK, not up. And those original levels of firearms crime from which there’s been a further decline were already low, as cross-national data compiled by the United Nations shows. The rate of homicides committed by firearms, for example, was just 0.137 per 100,000 population in 1995 in the UK and dropped to 0.075 per 100,000 population by 2009, the last year for which data is available. By comparison, the rate of homicides committed by firearm in the United States in 2009 was 2.973 per 100,000 population, a rate forty times greater than that in the UK.
You take a test to own a car, you are registered licence holder, oblliged to hold insurance, and be registered with the DVLA, and if you were to suffer a medical ailment, stroke, seizures, blackouts etc your licence is removed.
Well... the thing about that argument is despite all of that regulation, testing, insurance, etc... that "multi-use tool" still kills more people then the device that is designed simply to kill. And there are 1/3rd the cars in the US then there are guns.
So, that argument doesn't do a whole lot for your case.
motyak wrote: Pretty much cutting off guns worked in Australia...
Only because you didn't have all that many guns in the first place.
Its like saying we in the US have successfully reduced the incidence of Lion mauling fatalities to nearly 0 by saying you can't have a pet lion, when really the reason is there simply aren't very many lions here.
We had a gun massacre (more than 4 kills) more than once every two years for about 18 years prior to (I think it was 12 in 18 years?) Then the Port Arthur Massacre happened and Howard came down hard, now we have none. I'm not saying that's what will work in the US, I'm just saying it worked here. My first post was just an observation, it wasn't meant as an attack
You take a test to own a car, you are registered licence holder, oblliged to hold insurance, and be registered with the DVLA, and if you were to suffer a medical ailment, stroke, seizures, blackouts etc your licence is removed.
Well... the thing about that argument is despite all of that regulation, testing, insurance, etc... that "multi-use tool" still kills more people then the device that is designed simply to kill. And there are 1/3rd the cars in the US then there are guns.
So, that argument doesn't do a whole lot for your case.
Motor vehicle traffic deaths
Number of deaths: 33,687
Deaths per 100,000 population: 10.9
All poisoning deaths
Number of deaths: 42,917
Deaths per 100,000 population: 13.9
All firearm deaths
Number of deaths: 31,672
Deaths per 100,000 population: 10.3
There are more car deaths, but not many.
But there may be as 3rd as many guns, but a car is often a household item, with a large number of them owning at least 1 car. A gun has mentioned is not limited to 1 or 2 but can be owned as a in some cases a vast collection. The question here is the prevalence of these things in a household and not total numbers.
I will see if I can dig some figures out after work.
KalashnikovMarine wrote: Well that number drops when you factor out suicides, do we treat suicide as a part of gun violence? Or is suicide it's own distinct category?
That's a hard question, in an ideal world (well in an ideal world they'd be happy people who didn't commit suicide, so we'll go semi-ideal world) you'd have access to data on every suicide by gun, and find out how many were almost 'random' suicides, the person had suffered a minor setback and had a tendency to overreact to things in their life history so far and had a gun to hand leading to blammo, or 'planned' suicides, where the person just happened to use a gun, but would have done it anyway even if a gun wasn't there. Then you can cull the second from the data and keep the first. But that's impossible to do
POV deaths....vs.....deaths by weapon fire......it all comes down to individual responsibility. Its like a responsible vehicle owner vs a responsible individual that owns weapons. I know not to get behind the wheel of my car when I'm heavily medicated for pain or same back in my days when I drank alcohol. I also own weapons. I'm fully aware of muzzle control (don't point the weapon at another individual) I also know if I ever sell my weapons I better know you like you were my battle buddy. I will not sell my weapons to people who seem shadey, first time user, or an individual making me an offfer three times the value of my weapon. Yet since I own a M4 eerrrr a AR15 collapsable stock with all the goodies I can buy that I'm use to having on my weapon....I'm by current perception a "bad individual" and since I have PTSD I might be capable of losing my frame of mind and become a "insurgent" shooter.......I have a serious dislike, borderline hatred for Insurgents (AQ and the Taliban is lumped in insurgent) why in Gawds name would I become one of them. I'm satisfied the senate shot down the gun bill. Now everyone needs to step back. Take a breather. Go back over it again and actually think and come up with middle ground both can sides can agree on. I will add though I would support off the bat if a article saying that anyone who owns or is planning to buy a military style rifle must register the weapon with whatever database they have to collect the info. If your responsible enough to think you can handle the weapon then your responsible enough to register the weapon for accountability. I'm iffy with the 30 round mags since mine are issued to me...two basic load worth of mags.
We can however figure out that the total figure is roughly half of the above number because that's the FBI's 2011 number of 8,583 murders with firearms. So that's not quite a third of total deaths (which I'd like a source on as it happens) and most of the violent crime marked off, then there's be the accidental deaths. Which leads us to the suicides, which as said we can't really break down. However since we can't really do much for the dead, instead of banning weapons and hoping more potential suicides decide to not off themselves because it's too much work, we get on the whole psychological healthcare thing. Which should help with the tiny percentage of murders attributed to lunatic spree killers to.
If you are talking about car deaths vs gun deaths, you also have to take into account how they are used and how often.
If I were to drive to and from work I would be using a car for about an hour a day, going through 1 small town and one small city on busy public roads with thousands of other drivers.
The chance for a fatal accident on any given day is pretty small but because I would be driving for an hour every day the odds of me having a fatal accident at some point in the future are, if not high, at least high enough not to be sniffed at.
Multiply that out by how many people use cars and how often, add in different conditions, perhaps using cars when tired, hung over or otherwise impaired, and you get into a situation where cars have the potential to kill a lot of people.
However, the vast majority of car deaths are the result of accidents. Their primary purpose is as a means of transport. If you removed all cars from the world tomorrow the Western world would shudder to a halt as millions of people would be left stranded, unable to get to work, to the shops, to hospitals, schools, etc...
Grey Templar wrote: Still, the numbers show that more people get killed by car accidents than by guns, if we strip out suicides which are an unrelated issue.
Add in Injuries and it will become even more telling.
And automobiles still make up 1/3rd the numbers that guns do. So the ratio between guns per death, and auto's per death is hugely differant.
Grey Templar wrote: Still, the numbers show that more people get killed by car accidents than by guns, if we strip out suicides which are an unrelated issue.
Add in Injuries and it will become even more telling.
Sure. And more miners get dust in their lungs than pilots.
Because one thing happens bears no relationship to the other. "Because X does Y, Z should be allowed!"
As I have said in several threads now, gun control shouldn't be about taking guns away entirely (and certainly would not work in the USA given how many are in circulation), it should be about regulating the sale and use of guns and ensuring that users are adequately trained in how to use, maintain and store their weapons, and people who are not able to meet this level of training are not able to buy weapons. Same as if someone fails or has not taken their driving test they are not allowed to drive on their own (in the UK at least, I am not sure how it works in the US).
It is all about reducing the risks posed by guns and their owners in the same way that airbags, crumple zones, roll bars and seatbelts have been introduced to make cars safer.
Numbers are sketchy on it. There is no firm source. I've seen numbers ranging from 62 million registerd vehicles to 240 million, and a good chunk of those are government owned. We don't calculate government owned fire arms into the total of guns out there.
Grey Templar wrote: Still, the numbers show that more people get killed by car accidents than by guns, if we strip out suicides which are an unrelated issue.
Add in Injuries and it will become even more telling.
Sure. And more miners get dust in their lungs than pilots.
Because one thing happens bears no relationship to the other. "Because X does Y, Z should be allowed!"
As I have said in several threads now, gun control shouldn't be about taking guns away entirely (and certainly would not work in the USA given how many are in circulation), it should be about regulating the sale and use of guns and ensuring that users are adequately trained in how to use, maintain and store their weapons, and people who are not able to meet this level of training are not able to buy weapons. Same as if someone fails or has not taken their driving test they are not allowed to drive on their own (in the UK at least, I am not sure how it works in the US).
It is all about reducing the risks posed by guns and their owners in the same way that airbags, crumple zones, roll bars and seatbelts have been introduced to make cars safer.
But that's not the argument they want you to make, so they will simply act as though you've said that guns should be banned.
How hard is it to hav ethe ability to fire a gun in America compared to getting a car?
Well, the total cost of ownership for a firearm is actually much lower than that of an automobile, the "entry" price for firearms is also much less than a "good" automobile (as in, not a complete beater car from the lemon lot that we take our high school kids to for their first car)
Personally, I do not believe that we need more gun control, really we need less... HOWEVER, let me say that we as a country are focused in the wrong direction when it comes to firearms. I feel that we should be looking to the mental health apparatus in the country, and Obamacare, and the mess that both are in and causing. As again, more laws do nothing but take tools away from otherwise law abiding citizens.
Ensis Ferrae wrote: Personally, I do not believe that we need more gun control, really we need less...
Really?
Perhaps a "gun honesty box" where guns and ammo is just left on the counter and you are trusted to put the right amount of money in the box for whatever you take without anyone have to even interact with you?
How about getting rid of all those gun serial numbers?
Do away with all that pesky business of not being able to carry and use guns in some places? At last you will be able to shoot tin cans in the mall using your .45 or use the aisle in the aeroplane for some longer range target shooting!
Hyperbole but seriously... less gun control? To what end? Why? When you can buy guns and ammo in the supermarket already...
Ensis Ferrae wrote: Personally, I do not believe that we need more gun control, really we need less...
Really?
Perhaps a "gun honesty box" where guns and ammo is just left on the counter and you are trusted to put the right amount of money in the box for whatever you take without anyone have to even interact with you?
How about getting rid of all those gun serial numbers?
Do away with all that pesky business of not being able to carry and use guns in some places? At last you will be able to shoot tin cans in the mall using your .45 or use the aisle in the aeroplane for some longer range target shooting!
Hyperbole but seriously... less gun control? To what end? Why? When you can buy guns and ammo in the supermarket already...
Yes... less gun controls...
If we have any controls... it should mitigate idiots.. but, even then that's impossible.
So, because the bad guys are going to have guns regardless to whichever laws are in placed... I'd rather have the option to arm myself than to cower in fear somewhere.
I thought the Boston Bombers would be exhibit A in this discourse.
Ensis Ferrae wrote: Personally, I do not believe that we need more gun control, really we need less...
Really?
Perhaps a "gun honesty box" where guns and ammo is just left on the counter and you are trusted to put the right amount of money in the box for whatever you take without anyone have to even interact with you?
How about getting rid of all those gun serial numbers?
Do away with all that pesky business of not being able to carry and use guns in some places? At last you will be able to shoot tin cans in the mall using your .45 or use the aisle in the aeroplane for some longer range target shooting!
Hyperbole but seriously... less gun control? To what end? Why? When you can buy guns and ammo in the supermarket already...
He's "probably" talking about bans that do little to nothing to actually curb problems with guns. Things like what the AWB would have entailed. Pointless restrictions that only law abiding citizens would follow, defeating the whole point of the law.
Think about it this way, let's say we limit handgun mags to 10 rounds. Great, I can only carry a 10 round mag at any time while I conceal carry a firearm. Any larger is a felony and I get serious jailtime. Gangbangers on the corner don't give a feth. If they could afford drum mags for their pistols and hide them on their person they'd carry them. If I'm legally conceal carrying, I'm put at a serious disadvantage to a criminal, by a law that was supposed to protect me. He probably won't have those crazy 50 round drum mags, but he'll probably have a 17-22rd mag. THAT is the kind of gun control that people are trying to fight. Laws that hurt honest citizens while at the same time doing nothing to stop criminals.
The registry thing for example may sound like it goes into tin foil hat territory, but it has historical basis, and many countries have used it as a way to confiscate guns later. You always hear about Nazi Germany, but Canada used it's gun registry to confiscate firearms all the way up until 2011, and there was no compensation or say from the gun owners themselves. People say the idea is "ridiculous", but all it takes is one random bill to go through, and suddenly thousands of Americans are forced to turn in a gun that was perfectly legal the day before, simply because a politician changed his mind. To put it in perspective, think of it like if we had a car registry, and occasionally cars were banned for not meeting emissions standards or because they were "dangerous". They look up every person who owns a 1992 chevy Tahoe, send them a letter and say "hey, you know that car you own that was completely legal yesterday? That's now illegal. If you don't turn it in by the end of the week, you will be heavily fined and possibly have jailtime. Oh yeah, and we can't pay you for it, sorry, hope you can find a cheap car by the end of the week." Here's an example of one such confiscation that happened in Canada with the Ami Jager AP80, a 22LR lookalike of an AK47. http://winteryknight.wordpress.com/2013/01/10/take-a-lesson-from-canada-gun-registries-are-later-used-to-confiscate-guns/
That's why we keep butting heads with you guys. We're not against laws that help cut down on violence, keep them out of criminal or mentally ill hands, or keep people safe. We're against laws that claim to be doing that, but aren't. When congress brings up laws that would actually work, and not screw us over in some way or sneak something in, we'd be a lot more receptive. People were confused why we wanted the bills with the "90%" approval rate shot down, and that was because info was being kept that could be used to form a registry (and even if they outlawed it, the info is there. You really think the CIA, FBI, and ATF wouldn't have a field day digging through that from time to time?) Had they walked in and said "this is a bill for background checks at gunshows. There is nothing else there, it works exactly the same as the one you go through at a gun store, and nothing is tacked on." I think a lot of the people who opposed the "90%" bill would have supported it.
Yep... I recently saw that W. Virginia fairly recently (in the last couple years) passed a law stating that bars and taverns (establishments whose primary purpose is the sale and consumption of alcohol) were completely legal to be carrying in, I guess that in most other places you cannot have guns where you drink? (honestly dont know, I dont go to bars... maybe a BWW or something with fam, but not real bars) Anyhow, after this "ban" was lifted, WV saw barfights and "drunk and disorderly" conduct type situations all but disappear.
Personally, I'd be all for an NICS table at the entrance to every gun show in the country, as in, you cant get to the table floor to even SEE a gun unless you put pencil to paper and get the quick background check (it really aint that hard), if it keeps the loonies from going crazy about some mentally ill, or criminal type person buying a gun at a show. I do not believe that you can realistically legislate the private sale of weapons the way they were implying they could. Sure, you can have a law in place that says if you are selling a firearm to another private individual, it first has to go to an FFL, and that individual who bought from you can pick it up from them.... However, I know of a ton of people who "sell" to another individual that if asked whether they sent it through the proper legal channels, theyd probably say "it was a gift for doing X work for me awhile back" (even though the receiving party could then just say, no the money I paid him wasnt for the firearm, i owed him from a few months back with the wife and i were short on our rent, etc.)
I am wholly against limiting magazine sizes, ammo type, etc. I get a good giggle at all the media hype over "assault weapons" because that term didn't even exist until around the 80s when people first tried getting rid of them. Most anti-gun, and even some pro-gun people don't realize that under the first couple drafts of the "current" AWB, muzzle-loading rifles fell under the "assault weapon" category, because many of them are period pieces and are historically accurate. That means that they had an "assault weapon" sight, could fire their entire load of ammunition in a single trigger squeeze, could affix a bayonet to the front, etc. About the only thing that most of them didnt have was the composite stock or pistol grips.
Grey Templar wrote: Well yeah, no training or licensing is needed to own a car, but you do need a license to drive it.
in most states it takes around the same amount of effort to get a CCW as it does a driver's license... Yes you need one to drive, but also if it comes up, you need the CCW to be legally carrying in most places.
Easy E wrote: Now, I'm thinking of buying a gun. I have never bought one and never had an interest before.
What steps do I need to take to legally own a gun?
I'm thinking some sort of long arm so I can get use to shooting a bit. Nothing extravagant. Obviously, I don't plan on CCW.
If you're serious, I'd suggest a .22 rifle. Cheap, easy to acquire, and ammunition is still findable. Their accurate, don't have to worry about making yourself go deaf. Only real problem with them is their not the best weapon for home/personal defence given the small caliber.
Most states there isn't much requirement to legally acquire one. As long as your not a felon, or one of the other few instances that would stop you from purchasing one the process is you go into a store, point at what you want, fill out some forms, wait a few minutes while the FBI clears you, and then you hand the guy money.
Some states like Illinois have a 24 hour waiting period, others may be longer. Some places may have further requirements. Certain counties here in Illinois make you jump through flaming hoops to get even a .22. Check your State Police webpage, most of them have all of the legal requirements by the state to get a fire arm.
Pistols are also more likely to have a waiting period or background check than a rifle or shotgun, and some places have an age requirement for pistols.
Easy E wrote: So, a .22 sounds good, especially since I am not use to shooting at all. Once I'm use to it and have some knowledge/skill I can move up if I like it.
Thanks guys.
I would still suggest finding a friend whose knowleadable to teach you, or finding a shooter/hunter safety course as well. You can never be to safe with them.
I support teachers being able to carry to defend our kids. Not all schools have scrutiny guards so who else is there to defend the kids if not the teachers. And depending on your location police response time might not be favorable. If a teacher can stop or limit the casualties from these nut jobs I'm for it.
wowsmash wrote: I support teachers being able to carry to defend our kids. Not all schools have scrutiny guards so who else is there to defend the kids if not the teachers. And depending on your location police response time might not be favorable. If a teacher can stop or limit the casualties from these nut jobs I'm for it.
I'm assuming you meant security guards. Scrutiny guards sound very disconcerting (but probably very effective).
Easy E wrote: So, a .22 sounds good, especially since I am not use to shooting at all. Once I'm use to it and have some knowledge/skill I can move up if I like it.
Thanks guys.
I would still suggest finding a friend whose knowleadable to teach you, or finding a shooter/hunter safety course as well. You can never be to safe with them.
Oh yeah. I figured some noob like me would clearly benefit from a course. Thanks.
Is there some sor tof certification or other thing I should look for from a trainer/weapon educator?
take some courses, led by good, accredited instructors,
learn good habits (safty first, develpoe the finger off the trigger reflex ect)
then when you get out of the rookie mode,
join IDPA or IPSC or another shooting sport, you will find you feel like a rookie again, but it is
A lots of fun,
B extremely good for skills building
C extremely good for practising shooting under pressure, and time ect
Easy E wrote: So, a .22 sounds good, especially since I am not use to shooting at all. Once I'm use to it and have some knowledge/skill I can move up if I like it.
Thanks guys.
I would still suggest finding a friend whose knowleadable to teach you, or finding a shooter/hunter safety course as well. You can never be to safe with them.
Oh yeah. I figured some noob like me would clearly benefit from a course. Thanks.
Is there some sor tof certification or other thing I should look for from a trainer/weapon educator?
Easy...whats the main goal of you owning a fire arms. Home defense I can see which I'm sure a few other on here can direct you on the best weapon for that. Keep the 22 longrifle du to the fact a nifty fun shooter. Also ensure you train your wife on the use of them. Took me awhile to gt my wife to learn how to handle my M4. After that she has fun with it
djones520 wrote: Eh... one could argue that my FOID Card is one. And more then a few states do require permits before you can get guns.
Yeah, but they're not real states. They're half Canadian or something.
lol, our licenses are a bit worse then yours...
cops and a special kind of gun bureaucrat can legally search your home at any time here as part of the license stipulations.
If you stop at mc donalds on the way to the pistol range, your technically breaking the law here too, not to mention your wife and/or ex wife has to approve your gun license, background checks, with 2 other references and a federal police interview.
the gang bangers and general neer do wells dont seem to get the memo and go through those hoops unfortunately...
the bright side?
we get cheap norinco stuff (think 1911+1000rnds 45acp for $500 shipped cheap)
After the shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown that killed 26 people, administrators at Fairview said some parents approached them about allowing teachers to carry guns. Becky Wright-Welty, whose 13-year-old son attends the school, said she asked the Fairview School District’s board members: “What are we doing about security? I want to know.”
One of the biggest concerns of administrators and parents was that the quickest the sheriff’s department could reach Fairview, the district’s only school, would be nine minutes.
The school board, which includes a former county sheriff, worked out the details of liability coverage with Fairview’s insurance provider. Then, at an open meeting in late February, it authorized some of the school employees to undergo a training program that would certify them to carry guns on campus.
Those employees took a 40-hour course during spring break last month through a company called Shield Solutions, whose instructors included local SWAT team members. The training, which was paid for by the school, included firearms and situational drills. The employees, who have furnished their own guns, each also had to pass a background check, a drug test and a mental evaluation — all of which must be repeated annually, as well as additional firearms training and recertification.
“It’s not a ‘Well, here’s your gun; carry it,’ ” said Vic Williams, the Fairview superintendent. “It’s very closely monitored. It’s not a Clint Eastwood-type deal.”
At the first school board meeting after spring break, the board sanctioned those who had passed the training — and were then also considered Shield Solutions employees — to carry weapons at school. Most of West Plains learned the news from the front-page article in The Quill on March 21. Four days later, the district sent a letter to parents addressing concerns.
“I was really upset more about the way it happened, the back door,” said Eileen Wilson, 53, adding that she was considering removing her daughter, who is autistic, from Fairview. “I just don’t think something of this magnitude is something you just put out in a press release. ‘Oh, by the way, we got 10 people packing weapons now in school.’ ”
Interesting, I guess the guys who said "we should allow the teachers to conceal carry" finally get to put their money where their mouth is.
Only things that I don't like about the article is that they seem to go really out of their way to make it look like these people are a bunch of hicks. I'm not sure if that was intentionally meant to be a "Look at these stupid hicks" kind of thing, or if they were just trying to say "out there, this is normal." I'll let you guys decide on that.
The one thing that bugs me the most though is that according to the article this was done behind "closed doors". If this is true, then I'd be pretty upset, even though I would be all for this kind of thing. Something that big you don't just drop on peoples' heads after it's already passed, as you risk angering people who might have supported it or remained ambivalent otherwise. At least say "hey parents, we're thinking about letting the teachers conceal carry, we'll be voting on it next month."
So yeah, what do you think Dakka? We already trust these people with our children's lives 8 hours a day, 5 days a week (sometimes more). If they weren't going nuts and stabbing them in the face with pencils, I don't think the average teacher is going to go on a rampage just because he conceal carrys a pistol. Especially if they go through the kind of thing like these teachers did, with a background check, mental test, and drug testing, as well as yearly requalification, which is much more strict than what your average CCL holder goes through. What I wonder though is if this would actually intimidate most school shootings from happening, or if they'd keep happening even if every school adopted this policy. And if a student did try to shoot up a school with this policy, would the teacher be able to take that kid's life in order to protect the rest of the class? Because even if the teacher was in the right and that kid was dual wielding M60's, you know there'd be a media gakstorm the like of which we've never seen.
According to my understanding of America, Missouri is kind of like a third world nation in overall development and has some of the most uneducated people in the entire country as well as an astronomical crime rate and imbibes a massive amount of alcohol. So I'm going to lean towards this ending in disaster sooner than later.
According to my understanding of America, Missouri is kind of like a third world nation in overall development and has some of the most uneducated people in the entire country as well as an astronomical crime rate and imbibes a massive amount of alcohol. So I'm going to lean towards this ending in disaster sooner than later.
According to my understanding of America, Missouri is kind of like a third world nation in overall development and has some of the most uneducated people in the entire country as well as an astronomical crime rate and imbibes a massive amount of alcohol. So I'm going to lean towards this ending in disaster sooner than later.
*looks at Kain's flag*
Really?!?!? Did you just go there?
The ignorance...
I'm well aware that SA is something of a craphole. I mean, even in Capetown which is relatively nice, the nicest thing we can be compared to is New Orleans.
I much preferred my home town of Moscow when I visited it (I stayed for all of three years before moving out because my parents thought that Yelstin seizing power from what they saw as the legitimate authority of Russia as a travesty), and my adopted city of Richmond VA.
I'm pretty sure SA as a whole makes Missouri look like Tokyo HDI wise.
Still what do you mean by the comparison to a neutral country that was not aligned to the Communist Bloc or NATO? What the feth does that mean and what am I supposed to take from that?
Cheesecat wrote: Still what do you mean by the comparison to a neutral country that was not aligned to the Communist Bloc or NATO? What the feth does that mean and what am I supposed to take for that?
Ah the cold war definition of third world. Well played, although I don't think many people still use the definition that would put Sweden and Mali in the same category.
According to my understanding of America, Missouri is kind of like a third world nation in overall development and has some of the most uneducated people in the entire country as well as an astronomical crime rate and imbibes a massive amount of alcohol. So I'm going to lean towards this ending in disaster sooner than later.
*looks at Kain's flag*
Really?!?!? Did you just go there?
The ignorance...
I'm well aware that SA is something of a craphole. I mean, even in Capetown which is relatively nice, the nicest thing we can be compared to is New Orleans.
I much preferred my home town of Moscow when I visited it (I stayed for all of three years before moving out because my parents thought that Yelstin seizing power from what they saw as the legitimate authority of Russia as a travesty), and my adopted city of Richmond VA.
I'm pretty sure SA as a whole makes Missouri look like Tokyo HDI wise.
I assure you that Missouri is an awesome state...
Please... allow me to educate you... what do you want to know?
According to my understanding of America, Missouri is kind of like a third world nation in overall development and has some of the most uneducated people in the entire country as well as an astronomical crime rate and imbibes a massive amount of alcohol. So I'm going to lean towards this ending in disaster sooner than later.
*looks at Kain's flag*
Really?!?!? Did you just go there?
The ignorance...
I'm well aware that SA is something of a craphole. I mean, even in Capetown which is relatively nice, the nicest thing we can be compared to is New Orleans.
I much preferred my home town of Moscow when I visited it (I stayed for all of three years before moving out because my parents thought that Yelstin seizing power from what they saw as the legitimate authority of Russia as a travesty), and my adopted city of Richmond VA.
I'm pretty sure SA as a whole makes Missouri look like Tokyo HDI wise.
I assure you that Missouri is an awesome state...
Please... allow me to educate you... what do you want to know?
Well, the people in Virginia seem to paint you as underevolved pond scum. But they seem to hold that attitude to anyone who's more southern than they are. It seems that the entire state desperately wants to avoid being seen as Southern. Heaven forbid that people associate Virginia with the Carolinas or Lousiana.
I'm assuming that like many areas that aren't quite as evenly developed as say New York or Sweden that while the countryside may be a bit dodgy, the cities themselves are quite modern and up to date?
Cheesecat wrote: Still what do you mean by the comparison to a neutral country that was not aligned to the Communist Bloc or NATO? What the feth does that mean and what am I supposed to take for that?
Ah the cold war definition of third world. Well played, although I don't think many people still use the definition that would put Sweden and Mali in the same category.
Dude you're using terminology that hasn't been relevant for over 20 years how does the word "3d world" mean anything in the context you used it?
Cheesecat wrote: Still what do you mean by the comparison to a neutral country that was not aligned to the Communist Bloc or NATO? What the feth does that mean and what am I supposed to take for that?
Ah the cold war definition of third world. Well played, although I don't think many people still use the definition that would put Sweden and Mali in the same category.
Dude you're using terminology that hasn't been relevant for over 20 years how does the word "3d world" mean anything in the context you used it?
I was unaware that most foreign policy analysts were wrong and that the terms third and first world died with the cold war. And I think the context I put it in was clear, Missouri from what I've been told has a developmental level more akin to nations like South Africa or Egypt than to say California or Parisian France. I'd be glad to be wrong though, because the stereotypes passed around about the rest of the south in Virginia seemed to be horrendously unfair and somewhat racist.
Well, the people in Virginia seem to paint you as underevolved pond scum. But they seem to hold that attitude to anyone who's more southern than they are. It seems that the entire state desperately wants to avoid being seen as Southern. Heaven forbid that people associate Virginia with the Carolinas or Lousiana.
I'm assuming that like many areas that aren't quite as evenly developed as say New York or Sweden that while the countryside may be a bit dodgy, the cities themselves are quite modern and up to date?
Before making such blanket statements... I'd advise you to educate yourself.
I was unaware that most foreign policy analysts were wrong and that the terms third and first world died with the cold war. And I think the context I put it in was clear, Missouri from what I've been told has a developmental level more akin to nations like South Africa or Egypt than to say California or Parisian France. I'd be glad to be wrong though, because the stereotypes passed around about the rest of the south in Virginia seemed to be horrendously unfair and somewhat racist.
o.O
I've been to California as my dad's side is all over California...
I've been to Paris, France...
Missouri holds up well dude...
The stereotypes are waaaaaaay off... but, that's okay... it'll be our secret!
Well, the people in Virginia seem to paint you as underevolved pond scum. But they seem to hold that attitude to anyone who's more southern than they are. It seems that the entire state desperately wants to avoid being seen as Southern. Heaven forbid that people associate Virginia with the Carolinas or Lousiana.
I'm assuming that like many areas that aren't quite as evenly developed as say New York or Sweden that while the countryside may be a bit dodgy, the cities themselves are quite modern and up to date?
Before making such blanket statements... I'd advise you to educate yourself.
I was unaware that most foreign policy analysts were wrong and that the terms third and first world died with the cold war. And I think the context I put it in was clear, Missouri from what I've been told has a developmental level more akin to nations like South Africa or Egypt than to say California or Parisian France. I'd be glad to be wrong though, because the stereotypes passed around about the rest of the south in Virginia seemed to be horrendously unfair and somewhat racist.
o.O
I've been to California as my dad's side is all over California...
I've been to Paris, France...
Missouri holds up well dude...
The stereotypes are waaaaaaay off... but, that's okay... it'll be our secret!
Why does Virginia hate your state and pretty much anyone else who was part of the Confederacy so much? Seems kind of hypocritical given that they were the nucleus of what they seem to hate so much for quite a while.
Why does Virginia hate your state and pretty much anyone else who was part of the Confederacy so much? Seems kind of hypocritical given that they were the nucleus of what they seem to hate so much for quite a while.
Why does Virginia hate your state and pretty much anyone else who was part of the Confederacy so much? Seems kind of hypocritical given that they were the nucleus of what they seem to hate so much for quite a while.
I once suggested that Virginia was "southern" and got an ear lashing from my neighbor who swore up and down that Virginia was a "central" state and that the south was a place for "uneducated swath". This seemed to be a common opinion in Richmond.
Why does Virginia hate your state and pretty much anyone else who was part of the Confederacy so much? Seems kind of hypocritical given that they were the nucleus of what they seem to hate so much for quite a while.
I once suggested that Virginia was "southern" and got an ear lashing from my neighbor who swore up and down that Virginia was a "central" state and that the south was a place for "uneducated swath". This seemed to be a common opinion in Richmond.
Kain wrote: [
I once suggested that Virginia was "southern" and got an ear lashing from my neighbor who swore up and down that Virginia was a "central" state and that the south was a place for "uneducated swath". This seemed to be a common opinion in Richmond.
Kain wrote: [
I once suggested that Virginia was "southern" and got an ear lashing from my neighbor who swore up and down that Virginia was a "central" state and that the south was a place for "uneducated swath". This seemed to be a common opinion in Richmond.
Virginia is a Southern state... o.O
Not sure why it's an issue.
Must be all the DC transplants.
EDIT: ninja'ed.
I told them that they were "Southerners in denial" and never spoke to those neighbors again. This attitude combined with Richmonder's bad habit of getting on their cell phones at the most inconvenient time on the road, general belligerence to everyone, and breathtaking ignorance made my parents and later me grow to thoroughly loathe the state.
Kain wrote: I was unaware that most foreign policy analysts were wrong and that the terms third and first world died with the cold war. And I think the context I put it in was clear, Missouri from what I've been told has a developmental level more akin to nations like South Africa or Egypt than to say California or Parisian France. I'd be glad to be wrong though, because the stereotypes passed around about the rest of the south in Virginia seemed to be horrendously unfair and somewhat racist.
I think the words developed, developing and underdeveloped nations are more appropriate when describing the overall well-being of a country.
I'm not trying to put down the whole state, but I think it's very easy to say that parts of MO could be considered to be at 3rd-world levels. East St. Louis comes to mind.
As to the education bit, I cannot say for certain. But a very quick Google search produced these results:
That's quite the spread. I think there are a few important notes: specifically, the third link (ranks 9th in ed.) is listed as highly dubious given MO only cracked the top ten in a single category, yet made the top ten overall. Also, I think all these rankings should be taken with a grain of salt, as few of them record and compare based on the same factors (for example, some only rank based on math and reading, but not science; some rankings incorporate choice of school and on-time graduation as important factors in the rankings).
I'd be really curious to see some numbers that break down standardized testing scores (I hate those, btw- but it's the easiest to compare in a quanitifiable way) in categories such as Math, Science, Reading, On-Time Graduation, and SAT scores (not to be confused with post-secondary attendance, as that involves mostly economic factors). I have a suspicion that MO would do well in some categories, but fare very poorly overall (due to Young-Earth charter schools absolutely ruining the state's science ranking).
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Cheesecat wrote:
Kain wrote: I was unaware that most foreign policy analysts were wrong and that the terms third and first world died with the cold war. And I think the context I put it in was clear, Missouri from what I've been told has a developmental level more akin to nations like South Africa or Egypt than to say California or Parisian France. I'd be glad to be wrong though, because the stereotypes passed around about the rest of the south in Virginia seemed to be horrendously unfair and somewhat racist.
I think the words developed, developing and underdeveloped nations are more appropriate when describing the overall well-being of a country.
I think those three categories translate very nicely to 1st-, 2nd- and 3rd-worlds, as that is how they are commonlyused and widely accepted in a post-Cold-War context.
Cheesecat wrote: I guess, but weren't there some developed nations that were neutral in the Cold War?
Fun fact: Sweden was classified as a third world country, while South Korea which was until the 80s poorer than the North, was a first world nation. (To be fair, the Soviet Union and China were pumping a lot of money into North Korea back then.)
That's quite the spread. I think there are a few important notes: specifically, the third link (ranks 9th in ed.) is listed as highly dubious given MO only cracked the top ten in a single category, yet made the top ten overall. Also, I think all these rankings should be taken with a grain of salt, as few of them record and compare based on the same factors (for example, some only rank based on math and reading, but not science; some rankings incorporate choice of school and on-time graduation as important factors in the rankings).
I'd be really curious to see some numbers that break down standardized testing scores (I hate those, btw- but it's the easiest to compare in a quanitifiable way) in categories such as Math, Science, Reading, On-Time Graduation, and SAT scores (not to be confused with post-secondary attendance, as that involves mostly economic factors). I have a suspicion that MO would do well in some categories, but fare very poorly overall (due to Young-Earth charter schools absolutely ruining the state's science ranking).
*Sigh*
You really have no idea what you're talking about.
Cheesecat wrote: I guess, but weren't there some developed nations that were neutral in the Cold War?
Fun fact: Sweden was classified as a third world country, while South Korea which was until the 80s poorer than the North, was a first world nation.
Which is why I'm thinking developed, developing and underdeveloped are better terms as they seem to give a better description of the country's status.
Definitions change and mutate over time. When the Soviet Union fell and the Second World effectively died, the definition of Nth-world changed dramatically.
If definitions remained static then Gay would still mean happy and/or prostitute and a certain F word would still mean cigarettes. I don't see anyone trying to return those words to their roots.
If definitions remained static then Gay would still mean happy and/or prostitute and a certain F word would still mean cigarettes. I don't see anyone trying to return those words to their roots.
Sort of, I think certain cultures still use those words for those definitions like in the UK they use the f-word for cigarettes (as far as I'm aware) so yeah language is a constantly changing thing but also the same language will be a little different depending on the culture.
Whembly wrote:Before we go any further, what is YOUR definition of "3rd world living"?
Below the poverty line; coupled with lack of basic amenities and very little infrastructure. Borderline starvation. What's your definition?
Whembly wrote:
azazel the cat wrote:I'm not trying to put down the whole state, but I think it's very easy to say that parts of MO could be considered to be at 3rd-world levels.
Same could be said of just about every major Cities dude. o.O
azazel the cat wrote: East St. Louis comes to mind.
That's in Illinois. And yes, THAT city has issues.
I was actually referring to the East side of St. Louis, MO. As displayed in the link I posted, which shows 60-80% of residents living below the poverty line.
Whembly wrote:
azazel the cat wrote:As to the education bit, I cannot say for certain. But a very quick Google search produced these results:
That's quite the spread. I think there are a few important notes: specifically, the third link (ranks 9th in ed.) is listed as highly dubious given MO only cracked the top ten in a single category, yet made the top ten overall. Also, I think all these rankings should be taken with a grain of salt, as few of them record and compare based on the same factors (for example, some only rank based on math and reading, but not science; some rankings incorporate choice of school and on-time graduation as important factors in the rankings).
I'd be really curious to see some numbers that break down standardized testing scores (I hate those, btw- but it's the easiest to compare in a quanitifiable way) in categories such as Math, Science, Reading, On-Time Graduation, and SAT scores (not to be confused with post-secondary attendance, as that involves mostly economic factors). I have a suspicion that MO would do well in some categories, but fare very poorly overall (due to Young-Earth charter schools absolutely ruining the state's science ranking).
*Sigh*
You really have no idea what you're talking about.
Just stay in your Ivory Tower... m'kay?
Why don't you tell me what I'm talking about, then? Because I don't think my citations nor my hypothesis is in any way unreasonable. Please, enlighten me here. Cite sources as well. Exactly what part am I dead wrong about?
Whembly wrote:Before we go any further, what is YOUR definition of "3rd world living"?
Below the poverty line; coupled with lack of basic amenities and very little infrastructure. Borderline starvation. What's your definition?
Like this:
That's our disconnect.
You know what... if you think we're in a gak hole... fine, I don't care.
Just because many people are below the poverty line, doesn't mean they're not recieving help. I went to High School in the city in the #1 fething school in the state... in THAT east St. Louis city area, where I grew up with those poor pre-dominitely black family.
So, stop insinuating things.
As for Education, google-fu MAP for 3rd grade to 8th grade results and ACT collegiate entrance exams in MO.
MO is a cool place to live, but I'm biased since I've lived here since I was 2yo...
I didn't say I think Missouri is a gak hole; I've only ever been to St. Louis once. The airport. Can't say from just that. I just think your "MO is the bestest" position is incongruous with every single piece of data that I could.
But I'm legitimately curious about the education bit; though I can't find anything that you're referring to. Everything for ACT that I search for just comes up with registration instructions. What source are you using?
azazel the cat wrote: I didn't say I think Missouri is a gak hole; I've only ever been to St. Louis once. The airport. Can't say from just that.
To be fair to you... our Airport does suck bad. So, if that's all you've seen, I'm sorry. If you're in town again, I'm serious PM and I'll show you around.
I just think your "MO is the bestest" position is incongruous with every single piece of data that I could.
I said MO holds up well compared to CA and Paris, France... I do admit that I'm biased, so we need some other dakkanaut to chime in... djones? You're from Detroit, right? We ain't so bad...
But I'm legitimately curious about the education bit; though I can't find anything that you're referring to. Everything for ACT that I search for just comes up with registration instructions. What source are you using?
Right, but that data isn't representative of Missouri's standing based on the national levels, which is what we're kinda talking about. For example, the ACT link listed MO as 26th.
As a side note, according to the ACT link you posted, my prediction of science ratings being the worst of the categories appears accurate (thank the charter schools for that).
azazel the cat wrote: Right, but that data isn't representative of Missouri's standing based on the national levels, which is what we're kinda talking about. For example, the ACT link listed MO as 26th.
As a side note, according to the ACT link you posted, my prediction of science ratings being the worst of the categories appears accurate (thank the charter schools for that).
Comparing is actually difficult if you can't use ACT/SAT or something similar...
Each state uses their own standardized testing... so, *shrugs* not sure what I can do.
According to my understanding of America, Missouri is kind of like a third world nation in overall development and has some of the most uneducated people in the entire country as well as an astronomical crime rate and imbibes a massive amount of alcohol. So I'm going to lean towards this ending in disaster sooner than later.
I live in Kentucky and have lots of family in Missouri, I can assure you of two things
1. Missouri is not a third world country
and 2. Neither is Kentucky, although our infrastructure is definitely a bit worse than Missouri.
Unless you visit trailerparks/the eastern mountains of Kentucky. If you start hearing banjos, RUN.
Also, Virginians are southern. I find that hilarious that anyone from there could think that they're "not" part of the South. They were one of the most prominent states of the Confederacy.
Although from the sound of it you just had a crazy neighbor. I doubt most Virginians are that crazy.
The closest you'd get to "third world" in the US would be some areas of West Virginia along with the various ghettos of our major cities, New York, LA, and Chicago being notable examples of cities with poorer neighborhoods.
Grey Templar wrote: The closest you'd get to "third world" in the US would be some areas of West Virginia along with the various ghettos of our major cities, New York, LA, and Chicago being notable examples of cities with poorer neighborhoods.
There is severe rural poverty in more than just West Virginia.
According to my understanding of America, Missouri is kind of like a third world nation in overall development and has some of the most uneducated people in the entire country as well as an astronomical crime rate and imbibes a massive amount of alcohol. So I'm going to lean towards this ending in disaster sooner than later.
I live in Kentucky and have lots of family in Missouri, I can assure you of two things
1. Missouri is not a third world country
and 2. Neither is Kentucky, although our infrastructure is definitely a bit worse than Missouri.
Unless you visit trailerparks/the eastern mountains of Kentucky. If you start hearing banjos, RUN.
Also, Virginians are southern. I find that hilarious that anyone from there could think that they're "not" part of the South. They were one of the most prominent states of the Confederacy.
Although from the sound of it you just had a crazy neighbor. I doubt most Virginians are that crazy.
I found later on that Richmond tends to be rated as a rather unfavorable part of Richmond. The people in Virginia Beach, Alexandria, Norfolk, and Williamsburg were considerably more tolerable. It just seems that Richmond gets the worst of it. They're in that bad category of city that's small enough to have the issues with small communities but large enough to have all the issues of big cities. I vividly recall one person on her cell phone who parked in the only exit from the wal-mart supercenter at Henrico and when my mom horned her to get off the exit before texting she was met with a middle finger. Another richmonder my mom knew asked "Is South Africa overseas?" unironically. And one thought that Obama was republican and white.
I have often been left wondering how the people there remember to breathe given how conceited and painfully ignorant they tend to be.
MrMoustaffa wrote: I live in Kentucky and have lots of family in Missouri, I can assure you of two things
1. Missouri is not a third world country
and 2. Neither is Kentucky, although our infrastructure is definitely a bit worse than Missouri.
Unless you visit trailerparks/the eastern mountains of Kentucky. If you start hearing banjos, RUN.
Also, Virginians are southern. I find that hilarious that anyone from there could think that they're "not" part of the South. They were one of the most prominent states of the Confederacy.
Although from the sound of it you just had a crazy neighbor. I doubt most Virginians are that crazy.
I'm a Virginian who had to spend a miserable amount of time living in Missouri a few years ago. The people there routinely referred to me as a Yankee despite the fact that I come from the capital of the Confederacy.
Grey Templar wrote: The closest you'd get to "third world" in the US would be some areas of West Virginia along with the various ghettos of our major cities, New York, LA, and Chicago being notable examples of cities with poorer neighborhoods.
You forgot Mississippi
I do think though, that based on various studies that are out there, the American poor are still much much more wealthy and better off than the poor of many nations in Africa and other countries that are still considered 3d World. Ie, many of our poorest people still have refrigeration, microwaves and satellite television, etc.
Grey Templar wrote: The closest you'd get to "third world" in the US would be some areas of West Virginia along with the various ghettos of our major cities, New York, LA, and Chicago being notable examples of cities with poorer neighborhoods.
There is severe rural poverty in more than just West Virginia.
Grey Templar wrote: The closest you'd get to "third world" in the US would be some areas of West Virginia along with the various ghettos of our major cities, New York, LA, and Chicago being notable examples of cities with poorer neighborhoods.
You forgot Mississippi
I do think though, that based on various studies that are out there, the American poor are still much much more wealthy and better off than the poor of many nations in Africa and other countries that are still considered 3d World. Ie, many of our poorest people still have refrigeration, microwaves and satellite television, etc.
I'm a Virginian who had to spend a miserable amount of time living in Missouri a few years ago. The people there routinely referred to me as a Yankee despite the fact that I come from the capital of the Confederacy.
