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.

 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.

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.

 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.

Exactly my thoughts.

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).

Nope.

Uh... wow... Obama is coming off as a petulant child here...


So... did Adam Lanza submit to an extensive background check?
Did James Holmes or Jared Loughner?
Do the gang bangers in Chicago submit to background checks? No? Surely, you jest.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Frazzled wrote:

My M&P pistol has a seventeen round mag. Can I use that? (its a pistol).

Nope.

Why not?

Yeah, both he and Biden did come accross as sore losers.

I'm a little surprised by that actually, Obama's always been most courteous in his speeches.

 whembly wrote:
Uh... wow... Obama is coming off as a petulant child here...


So... did Adam Lanza submit to an extensive background check?
Did James Holmes or Jared Loughner?
Do the gang bangers in Chicago submit to background checks? No? Surely, you jest.

So much for respecting the Constitution and agreeing that it constrains the political exercise of power

 whembly wrote:

So... did Adam Lanza submit to an extensive background check?

We all know that he didn't.
Because he didn't own the firearms he used. His mother did however own them.

Did James Holmes or Jared Loughner?

Holmes most certainly did. We've known for quite awhile that Holmes purchased the guns he used legally.

Do the gang bangers in Chicago submit to background checks? No? Surely, you jest.

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.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 whembly wrote:

So... did Adam Lanza submit to an extensive background check?

We all know that he didn't.
Because he didn't own the firearms he used. His mother did however own them.

Did James Holmes or Jared Loughner?

Holmes most certainly did. We've known for quite awhile that Holmes purchased the guns he used legally.

Do the gang bangers in Chicago submit to background checks? No? Surely, you jest.

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...

And putting guns on teachers does?

Bull. That's just kneejerk garbage.

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.

 whembly wrote:
Uh... wow... Obama is coming off as a petulant child here...


So... did Adam Lanza submit to an extensive background check?
Did James Holmes or Jared Loughner?
Do the gang bangers in Chicago submit to background checks? No? Surely, you jest.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Frazzled wrote:

My M&P pistol has a seventeen round mag. Can I use that? (its a pistol).

Nope.

Why not?

He seems pretty reasonable to me, why shouldn't he be allowed to show disappointment?

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.

 Cheesecat wrote:


He seems pretty reasonable to me, why shouldn't he be allowed to show disappointment?

Because he's normally a cool cat... this is out of character.

Ironically, Obama lost partly because of opposition from several red-state Democrats facing re-election in November 2014.

Tactically speaking... he lost a wedge issue against the GOP in his attempt to help lead the Democrat's attempt to retake the House.

 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.

Can't prove a negative, no dice. Its up to you, the affirmative the say that this will make the situation worse.

Now it may not alter the situation at all, but thats an ok result.

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.

Indeed, just saying we have no evidence whatsoever that says it could make it worse.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Indeed, just saying we have no evidence whatsoever that says it could make it worse.

Nor any that says it would be better.

Correct.

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.

 Kanluwen wrote:
And not a single damned bit of evidence suggesting it would make things better.

No evidence either way, so why does it matter?

See this?

This is me leaving the thread. Dealing with people who think that "guns in schools = safety!" is not my idea of a fun night.

 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.

Regulate Internet sales? Those are ALREADY on the books.

Kanluwen wrote:See this?

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.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 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.