Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
Just a hypothetical situation here:

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...

 whembly wrote:

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
Just a hypothetical situation here:

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 NG MP'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

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.

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.

 MrMoustaffa wrote:

 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.

"Bullets! My only weakness! How did you know?"

-every killer, ever

I love how lefty types bemoan "oh the children"

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,

Wow, for a Canadian flag on that, its awfully Second Amendmenty.

Here's your honorary "We Like Thundersticks" card. Moonshine's just behind the shed.

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.

easysauce wrote:

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.

Son I may have to make you an honorary Texan. How do you feel about something called "queso?"

 Howard A Treesong wrote:


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"

Pretty much cutting off guns worked in Australia...

 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.

easysauce wrote:

 Howard A Treesong wrote:


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.

http://irregulartimes.com/index.php/archives/2012/07/24/is-the-united-kingdom-suffering-a-violent-firearms-crime-wave-under-gun-control/

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.

 Eetion wrote:




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.

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.

 Grey Templar wrote:

 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

 djones520 wrote:

 Eetion wrote:




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.

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.

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?

 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.

Majority of weapons use for suicide are hand held...smaller percentage are shotguns....suicide by police is that added in the report?

Everyone who is a red blooded 'Murican knows that the only rational response to too many guns is MOAR GUNZ!1!1!!

That was how the West was won!

 Easy E wrote:
Everyone who is a red blooded 'Murican knows that the only rational response to too many guns is MOAR GUNZ!1!1!!

That was how the West was won!

Yes actually.

 Frazzled wrote:

 Easy E wrote:
Everyone who is a red blooded 'Murican knows that the only rational response to too many guns is MOAR GUNZ!1!1!!

That was how the West was won!

Yes actually.

So in essence, when GW wrote the Ork Codex, they didn't really have soccer hooligans in mind..... that had 'Muricans



....Interesting

No. Ork guns are too puny.

Damn right they are, Orkz can't do dakka like we can.