I have to leave my school

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.

**Fateweaver**

Soldiers job IS to defend our country, even the reserves train in the use of firearms so that if they get called upon to aid the regular Army/Navy/Marines/AF they know how to do it.

If you don't think it's the job of the military to defend us and our country than what the hell you think they exist for? Just to get paid?

**ShumaGorath**

Fateweaver wrote:Soldiers job IS to defend our country, even the reserves train in the use of firearms so that if they get called upon to aid the regular Army/Navy/Marines/AF they know how to do it.

If you don't think it's the job of the military to defend us and our country than what the hell you think they exist for? Just to get paid?

They don't get paid to enforce law, they get paid to follow military orders. The dude trying to stab me, unless it's occurring on foreign soil and the dudes somehow classified as a foreign combatant, is a law enforcement matter. The soldier doesn't have the training to handle the situation, his forte is to kill and capture, not to apprehend or enforce the law. Cops go through more training than soldiers (depending on the branch of law enforcement).

I lived next to a sizable naval air station for 20 years, it wasn't the soldiers that were driving around with the cars that had flashy lights.

**FITZZ**

CadianXV wrote:@Marshall2Crusaders: I have no doubt that you are a well balanced, responsible individual, well capable of wielding a legal weapon in a safe way. I will not challenge your ability, nor your right to carry such a weapon.

What I will challenge however is gun culture as a whole. My progressive social thinking leads me to believe that in a society where firearms are relatively commonplace, then incidents such as the Penske shootings will also become relatively commonplace, or at the least more so than in a society where the majority of people do not carry firearms.

I can see your argument of wanting to defend your family- I want to defend my loved ones as well, however whilst owning a firearm is one way of doing this, my opinion is that by doing so, you create a worse environment for your family, because others will be forced to resort to carrying a lethal weapon to defend their families.

I am obviously aware that you did not start this trend, but I lament the fact that it exists regardless.

While I can agree on some points (it would be a much better world if firearms didn't exist and we could kill each other with swords in a civilized fasion

),the simple fact is the world exist as it does and disarming citizens is not the answer to ending "gun crimes" or violent crime.
I'm also just a tad unclear on how "owning a gun to defend my family creates a worse environment."

**ShumaGorath**

FITZZ wrote:
CadianXV wrote:@Marshall2Crusaders: I have no doubt that you are a well balanced, responsible individual, well capable of wielding a legal weapon in a safe way. I will not challenge your ability, nor your right to carry such a weapon.

What I will challenge however is gun culture as a whole. My progressive social thinking leads me to believe that in a society where firearms are relatively commonplace, then incidents such as the Penske shootings will also become relatively commonplace, or at the least more so than in a society where the majority of people do not carry firearms.

I can see your argument of wanting to defend your family- I want to defend my loved ones as well, however whilst owning a firearm is one way of doing this, my opinion is that by doing so, you create a worse environment for your family, because others will be forced to resort to carrying a lethal weapon to defend their families.

I am obviously aware that you did not start this trend, but I lament the fact that it exists regardless.

While I can agree on some points (it would be a much better world if firearms didn't exist and we could kill each other with swords in a civilized fasion ),the simple fact is the world exist as it does and disarming citizens is not the answer to ending "gun crimes" or violent crime.
I'm also just a tad unclear on how "owning a gun to defend my family creates a worse environment."

Well it propagates a civilian sale industry the existence of which aids the black market. The real truth of the matter is that taking guns from civilians wouldn't prevent gun crime, but it would in the long term aid in its reduction by the simple fact that it is easier to track and enforce the illegal sale of an item that has no legal channels for distribution. It's far from a silver bullet, it's just one part of a much larger change that would have to occur shifting this from a culture that adores and worships violence to one that is sickened by it.

It's also a pipe dream.

**Ratbarf**

Last I checked Switzerland has an Assault rifle in every home, and most nordic countries, ( I think) have mandatory military training. Yet they do not have a high level of gun crime.

**FITZZ**

ShumaGorath wrote:
FITZZ wrote:
CadianXV wrote:@Marshall2Crusaders: I have no doubt that you are a well balanced, responsible individual, well capable of wielding a legal weapon in a safe way. I will not challenge your ability, nor your right to carry such a weapon.

What I will challenge however is gun culture as a whole. My progressive social thinking leads me to believe that in a society where firearms are relatively commonplace, then incidents such as the Penske shootings will also become relatively commonplace, or at the least more so than in a society where the majority of people do not carry firearms.

I can see your argument of wanting to defend your family- I want to defend my loved ones as well, however whilst owning a firearm is one way of doing this, my opinion is that by doing so, you create a worse environment for your family, because others will be forced to resort to carrying a lethal weapon to defend their families.

I am obviously aware that you did not start this trend, but I lament the fact that it exists regardless.

While I can agree on some points (it would be a much better world if firearms didn't exist and we could kill each other with swords in a civilized fasion ),the simple fact is the world exist as it does and disarming citizens is not the answer to ending "gun crimes" or violent crime.
I'm also just a tad unclear on how "owning a gun to defend my family creates a worse environment."

Well it propagates a civilian sale industry the existence of which aids the black market. The real truth of the matter is that taking guns from civilians wouldn't prevent gun crime, but it would in the long term aid in its reduction by the simple fact that it is easier to track and enforce the illegal sale of an item that has no legal channels for distribution. It's far from a silver bullet, it's just one part of a much larger change that would have to occur shifting this from a culture that adores and worships violence to one that is sickened by it.

It's also a pipe dream.

I see what your getting at Shuma,but as you said...it's a pipe dream.
Not only for reasons you cited,but also (alow me to doff my foil hat)...the concept of a heavily armed government and a totally disarmend population concerns me just a bit.

**Fateweaver**

ShumaGorath wrote:
FITZZ wrote:
CadianXV wrote:@Marshall2Crusaders: I have no doubt that you are a well balanced, responsible individual, well capable of wielding a legal weapon in a safe way. I will not challenge your ability, nor your right to carry such a weapon.

What I will challenge however is gun culture as a whole. My progressive social thinking leads me to believe that in a society where firearms are relatively commonplace, then incidents such as the Penske shootings will also become relatively commonplace, or at the least more so than in a society where the majority of people do not carry firearms.

I can see your argument of wanting to defend your family- I want to defend my loved ones as well, however whilst owning a firearm is one way of doing this, my opinion is that by doing so, you create a worse environment for your family, because others will be forced to resort to carrying a lethal weapon to defend their families.

I am obviously aware that you did not start this trend, but I lament the fact that it exists regardless.

While I can agree on some points (it would be a much better world if firearms didn't exist and we could kill each other with swords in a civilized fasion ),the simple fact is the world exist as it does and disarming citizens is not the answer to ending "gun crimes" or violent crime.
I'm also just a tad unclear on how "owning a gun to defend my family creates a worse environment."

Well it propagates a civilian sale industry the existence of which aids the black market. The real truth of the matter is that taking guns from civilians wouldn't prevent gun crime, but it would in the long term aid in its reduction by the simple fact that it is easier to track and enforce the illegal sale of an item that has no legal channels for distribution. It's far from a silver bullet, it's just one part of a much larger change that would have to occur shifting this from a culture that adores and worships violence to one that is sickened by it.

It's also a pipe dream.

Or if leftists are to be believed taking guns away from US citizens would stop them from going into Mexican drug cartels.

**ShumaGorath**

Ratbarf wrote:Last I checked Switzerland has an Assault rifle in every home, and most nordic countries, ( I think) have mandatory military training. Yet they do not have a high level of gun crime.

They don't have cultures that worship violence as we do. They're also a tiny country with less than a 40th our population.

Or if leftists are to be believed taking guns away from US citizens would stop them from going into Mexican drug cartels.

Thats got nothing to do with what I said.

I see what your getting at Shuma,but as you said...it's a pipe dream.
Not only for reasons you cited,but also (alow me to doff my foil hat)...the concept of a heavily armed government and a totally disarmend population concerns me just a bit.

I don't see why. It's not like your nine is going to be bringing down an abrahms anyway. If the military was a cohesive body that was capable of acting against the broad civilian population of america (such as most military juntas are) then the american populaces little pea shooters wouldn't mean a damn thing. Your militia would just get hit by a hellfire fired from a drone piloted from the safe interior of a military base or carrier.

**Fateweaver**

ShumaGorath wrote:
Ratbarf wrote:Last I checked Switzerland has an Assault rifle in every home, and most nordic countries, ( I think) have mandatory military training. Yet they do not have a high level of gun crime.

They don't have cultures that worship violence as we do. They're also a tiny country with less than a 40th our population.

Or if leftists are to be believed taking guns away from US citizens would stop them from going into Mexican drug cartels.

Thats got nothing to do with what I said.

Not saying it does but I'm just jumping the gun because if this thread keeps on someone will say that.

You know it as well as I do Shuma.

**ShumaGorath**

Fateweaver wrote:
ShumaGorath wrote:
Ratbarf wrote:Last I checked Switzerland has an Assault rifle in every home, and most nordic countries, ( I think) have mandatory military training. Yet they do not have a high level of gun crime.

They don't have cultures that worship violence as we do. They're also a tiny country with less than a 40th our population.

Or if leftists are to be believed taking guns away from US citizens would stop them from going into Mexican drug cartels.

Thats got nothing to do with what I said.

Not saying it does but I'm just jumping the gun because if this thread keeps on someone will say that.

You know it as well as I do Shuma.

Yes.
Someone like you.
When you said it.
Unprompted.
Just now.
To make fun of liberals.

**Fateweaver**

ShumaGorath wrote:
Fateweaver wrote:
ShumaGorath wrote:
Ratbarf wrote:Last I checked Switzerland has an Assault rifle in every home, and most nordic countries, ( I think) have mandatory military training. Yet they do not have a high level of gun crime.

They don't have cultures that worship violence as we do. They're also a tiny country with less than a 40th our population.

Or if leftists are to be believed taking guns away from US citizens would stop them from going into Mexican drug cartels.

Thats got nothing to do with what I said.

Not saying it does but I'm just jumping the gun because if this thread keeps on someone will say that.

You know it as well as I do Shuma.

Yes.
Someone like you.
When you said it.
Unprompted.
Just now.
To make fun of liberals.

Did I strike a nerve Shuma. I'm sure it's not JUST the liberals. I'm sure there are some moderates that feel that way too.

As I recall it was one of my well known nemesis' that constantly posts about the US being to blame for guns going into Mexico and how it would stop if we lost our 2nd Amendment Rights.

Anyway. It's a pretty craptacular school for that gak to go on. Glad I never felt the need to bring a weapon into school when I was in HS (fights were settled with fists, not .45's and machetes).

**Marshal2Crusaders**

CadianXV wrote:@Marshall2Crusaders: I have no doubt that you are a well balanced, responsible individual, well capable of wielding a legal weapon in a safe way. I will not challenge your ability, nor your right to carry such a weapon.

What I will challenge however is gun culture as a whole. My progressive social thinking leads me to believe that in a society where firearms are relatively commonplace, then incidents such as the Penske shootings will also become relatively commonplace, or at the least more so than in a society where the majority of people do not carry firearms.

I can see your argument of wanting to defend your family- I want to defend my loved ones as well, however whilst owning a firearm is one way of doing this, my opinion is that by doing so, you create a worse environment for your family, because others will be forced to resort to carrying a lethal weapon to defend their families.

I am obviously aware that you did not start this trend, but I lament the fact that it exists regardless.

I like this post. He has revealed the real problems with a gun culture. Its all about escalation. If I have a gun, my neighbor gets a gun to feel secure. His neighbor buys one, and his neighbor buys one. I can see how it can appear like it can spiral out of control relatively quickly.

The main problem is, with anything in the US, if the culture of the US preached responsibility in schools (which we dont), we would not be having this problem. If every child was brought up being taught that personal responsibility is the duty of every citizen, we would see less crime and the need for firearms would decrease. The public school system in the US sucks, horribly. The younger you instill values in someone, the longer they stick with them. If 19-20 is the first time someone is taught responsible gun handling skills, there is a problem in the system.

I dont mean religious or values, I mean social values. How to interact with other people and the system.

**FITZZ**

ShumaGorath wrote:

I see what your getting at Shuma,but as you said...it's a pipe dream.
Not only for reasons you cited,but also (alow me to doff my foil hat)...the concept of a heavily armed government and a totally disarmend population concerns me just a bit.

I don't see why. It's not like your nine is going to be bringing down an abrahms anyway. If the military was a cohesive body that was capable of acting against the broad civilian population of america (such as most military juntas are) then the american populaces little pea shooters wouldn't mean a damn thing. Your militia would just get hit by a hellfire fired from a drone piloted from the safe interior of a military base or carrier.

Once again when your right your right Shuma...and I agree with you,my 9mm nor my .45 or even my 12 guage could do much of sqaut,but knowing I have the right to own them,well it helps me sleep a bit better...perhaps I am labouring under yet another illusion of safety/freedom.

**Marshal2Crusaders**

There wont come a day when the UA military would ever attack the US population, without a large portion of the US military refusing to do it.

**Fateweaver**

Yeah, a lot of people have this belief that the military would just do as ordered even if it meant turning guns and tanks on it's own citizens.

Sure there'd be some, maybe even half would do it but in all likelihood the ones ordering the military to start shooting US citizens would be the ones getting fired upon by those they are ordering to do it.

I hope to never have to kill or hurt anyone to defend myself but I do sleep better at night knowing that the powers that be granted me the legal right to do so. It's like having house or car insurance. You may never need it (God willing) but it's there if you ever do.

**Marshal2Crusaders**

Part of being a soldier is recognizing that the citizens of the United States are who you serve. That is the point of being a professional soldier. Regardless of how some soldiers act, the true master of the Military is the People and their Constitution. Few soldiers would be willing to attack New York or something because the citizens are protesting the government.

**ShumaGorath**

Marshal2Crusaders wrote:There wont come a day when the UA military would ever attack the US population, without a large portion of the US military refusing to do it.

Pretty much, it's an incredibly unrealistic scenario. Were it to actually come to intercene military and civilian conflict (ala a new civil war) it's likely that the military and police forces would just arm civilian allies anyway.

**Ian Sturrock**

If I lived in the USA, I would learn to use, and then would own & carry guns, partly for the "escalation" reasons mentioned above. In the US, criminals are likely to be armed, too.

In the UK, realistically, the majority of people will never see a gun in their lives, unless they happen to do shooting for sport, or unless they're in the army, or unless they're personally involved in criminal activity. Yes, a small number of criminals use guns, but usually only against other criminals.

**Slarg232**

well, Since moving doesnt sound like an option, I would do several things:

1) get 911 on your speed dial
2) learn how to effectively improvise weaponry
3) hope things go your way.

I live in the country, and am surrounded by guns. I have no problem shooting someone if the need arrises, but as it is, not yet. as to the debate on weither or not someone should be armed, Where I live its a group of like 10 guys who bully everyone around, and they wont do jack gak unless there are at least 5 of them to you. I do not carry weapons around with me, but I have practiced getting my keys on my fingers to form a sort of brass knuckle, learned how to best hold my pencil so as to keep the point out, and also how to whip my pocket watch out in case I need to use the chain.

I have not really had any reason to suspect that they will hurt me physically, but damn if I'm not prepared

**Emperors Faithful**

Fateweaver wrote:Yeah, a lot of people have this belief that the military would just do as ordered even if it meant turning guns and tanks on it's own citizens.

Sure there'd be some, maybe even half would do it but in all likelihood the ones ordering the military to start shooting US citizens would be the ones getting fired upon by those they are ordering to do it.

I'm going to have to disagree with you there, mate. If the military leaders did something like roll up to the Whitehouse and out Obama or whatever President was in office, then there might be a lot of fuss from the members of the Military itself. It's obviously a clear and (most importantly) unnecessary breach in the Constitution.
However last I heard, the President is Commander-in-Chief, so that little scenario is unlikely.
What is more likely is some sort of Terrorist attack (or series of such) prompting the US Govt. to declare Martial Law on some or even all of America's regions. Martial Law opens up an incredibly nasty can of worms such as arbitary imprisonment, loss of rights, impromptu searches ect. Then it would be all to easy to see the US military shooting down citizens (or vice versa).

**Bran Dawri**

Violence is the last resort of the incompetent.

And be honest, how likely are all those horrible "what if" scenarios to actually occur?

**ShumaGorath**

Violence is the last resort of the incompetent.

And those that will survive. Pacifism is a philosophical stance that is inapplicable in many situations without suffering undue hardship for it.

**Bran Dawri**

I didn't say I was a pacifist.
I still abhor violence.
I also firmly believe that the whole point of building a civilization is to reach a point where it's unnecessary to indulge in it.

**Murray**

The worst thing that happened at my schools (moved alot) was fist fights, nothing wrong with that, just to blow off steam.

OP: learn martial arts in self defence, most of them teach how to counter weapons inc. knifes

**Emperors Faithful**

Murray wrote:The worst thing that happened at my schools (moved alot) was fist fights, nothing wrong with that, just to blow off steam.

Same's true for me.

OP: learn martial arts in self defence, most of them teach how to counter weapons inc. knifes

You don't have to be the next Jet Li or anything, but you should at least motivate yourself to take some lessons in some kind of fighting technique. Be it basic self-defence, boxing, Karate or whatever, you should be able to at least hold your own in a fight without resorting to pulling a knife. (Which will instantly aggravate the situation.)
Of course, in my opinion coming to blows in any case is a sure sign of either their unwarranted aggresion, your inability to defuse the situation, or a mixture of both.

**Slarg232**

Bran Dawri wrote:Violence is the last resort of the incompetent.

I heard a quote that went something like this on Dawn of War, i beleive it was:

"Do not react to force of any kind. No problem needs to be solved by violence" - Race X, Now extinct

**Ian Sturrock**

Improvised weapons like keys, pencils, and pocketwatches are useless. You're better off learning to hit hard. Sure, you might leave a nasty scar by stabbing someone with a pencil, but you're not going to knock them out -- just make them even angrier with you than they already were.

Now, if you have a heavy ashtray, or stool, or chair, or bottle handy -- that's different. That's an improvised weapon. Something that might actually end the fight.

**Marshal2Crusaders**

Three quick upward stabs to the neck with a pencil in quick succession will incapacitate/kill. ANYTHING can be a weapon. Its where you strike that counts, if you in a situation that requires keys etc, you had better be ready to kill or main, because thats all you can do to end the fight, like good sir Ian said.

**Vulcan**

After wading through this thread, (which degraded into 'weapons are de ebil and you musn't protect yourself' a lot faster than I thought it would), I have just two thing to say.

First, to the OP: You are perfectly safe where you are. If the attacker managed not to kill his target when he stabbed him in the neck, then the knife-wielding thugs in your area have no idea how to use a knife. Just grab the knife arm and kick 'em in the nuts. They'll never see it coming.

Second, to the disarmament group: If the only way you can trust me to be a responsable human being is to render me completely harmless, you don't trust me at all.

And I can do more damage with a good sharp pencil than the thug mentioned in the OP managed with a knife. So... do we outlaw pencils? What about baseball bats? Where do you draw the line?

PM me to discuss, I'm not returning to this thread.

**Bla_Ze**

When reading this thread i thought of a pic i saw quite a while ago. Still it kind if fits, kind of..
Still it makes you think.

PS Sorry for the "propaganda"