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.

Good point. It didn't stop the stressed out student from bringing in a shotgun and handful of Molotovs.

 master of ordinance wrote:
Kalashnikov has a very good point here. Compared to the number of shootings each year, dangerous driving is far more lethal, yet we still let people have access too cars, which if you think on it are essentially 1-2 Ton hunks of metal capable of going at ridiculous speeds.

Which is more lethal-a drunk with a gun or a drunk in a car?

I really hate this argument.

A car is designed to transport stuff. A gun is designed to kill stuff. See the difference?

 Easy E wrote:

 master of ordinance wrote:
Kalashnikov has a very good point here. Compared to the number of shootings each year, dangerous driving is far more lethal, yet we still let people have access too cars, which if you think on it are essentially 1-2 Ton hunks of metal capable of going at ridiculous speeds.

Which is more lethal-a drunk with a gun or a drunk in a car?

I really hate this argument.

A car is designed to transport stuff. A gun is designed to kill stuff. See the difference?

But one kills FAR more than the other. See the difference?

 MWHistorian wrote:

 Easy E wrote:

 master of ordinance wrote:
Kalashnikov has a very good point here. Compared to the number of shootings each year, dangerous driving is far more lethal, yet we still let people have access too cars, which if you think on it are essentially 1-2 Ton hunks of metal capable of going at ridiculous speeds.

Which is more lethal-a drunk with a gun or a drunk in a car?

I really hate this argument.

A car is designed to transport stuff. A gun is designed to kill stuff. See the difference?

But one kills FAR more than the other. See the difference?

One is also something that you are far more likely to come into contact with in the course of everyday life. The other is not.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 MWHistorian wrote:

 Easy E wrote:

 master of ordinance wrote:
Kalashnikov has a very good point here. Compared to the number of shootings each year, dangerous driving is far more lethal, yet we still let people have access too cars, which if you think on it are essentially 1-2 Ton hunks of metal capable of going at ridiculous speeds.

Which is more lethal-a drunk with a gun or a drunk in a car?

I really hate this argument.

A car is designed to transport stuff. A gun is designed to kill stuff. See the difference?

But one kills FAR more than the other. See the difference?

One is also something that you are far more likely to come into contact with in the course of everyday life. The other is not.

My point exactly.

A car is designed to transport stuff. A gun is designed to kill stuff. See the difference?

Given that the argument "Guns are bad!" is generally based off of the amount of mayhem resulting from an unrighteous use or accident, comparison with an "Acceptable" item that produces a great deal MORE mayhem is valid. I'm sorry, manufacturers intent becomes absolutely irrelevant to the discussion at that point.

Now, you can argue that the intent is the important part, but it's not really going to lead anywhere good. If manufacturer intent is the crucial factor, I should be able to build and sell a 5.56mm autoloading rifle that outperforms the AR15 in sporting competition just fine, since I am never intending for it to kill anything more alive than paper. The fact that this mythical rifle can probably fight on par with an AR pattern doesn't matter, by the above logic. Similarly, if I build a car for the purpose of outperforming a street racer, this would automatically put my vehicle in the "Bad stuff" category...even if i Never break any traffic law on the books for the life of the vehicle. It's ridiculous.

 master of ordinance wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 MWHistorian wrote:

 Easy E wrote:

 master of ordinance wrote:
Kalashnikov has a very good point here. Compared to the number of shootings each year, dangerous driving is far more lethal, yet we still let people have access too cars, which if you think on it are essentially 1-2 Ton hunks of metal capable of going at ridiculous speeds.

Which is more lethal-a drunk with a gun or a drunk in a car?

I really hate this argument.

A car is designed to transport stuff. A gun is designed to kill stuff. See the difference?

But one kills FAR more than the other. See the difference?

One is also something that you are far more likely to come into contact with in the course of everyday life. The other is not.

My point exactly.

This also depends greatly on your individual life/job, etc. Some of us come into contact with firearms near everyday, while others may get close enough to see one on TV.

Also, not all guns are designed to kill things... Give me a fething break... There are target/comp pistols, flare guns, track and field guns (the starters), paintball guns, etc. that are designed with specific other tasks in mind. Still, often times a bullet is a bullet is a bullet, and a target/competition pistol will kill a person just as easily as an AR-15, or an AK-47, or really just as easily as that kid down the street's Ford Focus.

Well then, we should stop funding any anti-terrorism efforts because way more people were killed by Food Poisoning in 2001 than were killed in 9/11.

Therefore, by everyone's agreed logic of tackling the things that kill the most people we should drop 99%of the funding for the Department of Homeland security and shift its funding to the FDA.

Amiright?

 Easy E wrote:
Well then, we should stop funding any anti-terrorism efforts because way more people were killed by Food Poisoning in 2001 than were killed in 9/11.

Therefore, by everyone's agreed logic of tackling the things that kill the most people we should drop 99%of the funding for the Department of Homeland security and shift its funding to the FDA.

Amiright?

lol, I agree that we should defund the DHS (except for the Coast Guard, they do important work)... but the money shouldn't go to FDA, unless specifically allocated to ad campaigns promoting healthier eating, as determined by medical professionals, not political people from the 1960s

 SOFDC wrote:

A car is designed to transport stuff. A gun is designed to kill stuff. See the difference?

. I'm sorry, manufacturers intent becomes absolutely irrelevant to the discussion at that point.

We aren't talking designer intent. We are talking the purpose of the tool. Intent and purpose are not the same.

For example, a Hammer* can be used to kill and maim things. However, it's purpose is to build things. A car is designed to tranpsort stuff from point a to point B, but it can also kill and maim people. A chair's purpose is to be sat upon, but you can use it to help tame lions.

What is a gun's purpose? To kill and maim stuff. It can also be used for fun, but that is not its purpose. Note, I'm not saying that the purpose to kill and maim is inherently bad. There are many times where it is perfectly valid to need to kill and maim something. Purpose is not an emotional judgement, it is a simple statement of...urm....purpose.







*Unless it is a Warhammer and then the purpose is to kill and miam things.

You're (as usual) building a straw man. The point isn't 'tackle the big things', it is 'since you are willing to accept the big things without enhanced Gov't interference in our lives, accept the small ones that already have constitutional protection without calling for MOAR gov't interference and further attempting to dilute the constitutional protections/individual rights'.

The argument bluntly put is if you want to use the gov't to further infringe on my rights in an attempt to stop a minuscule amount of deaths, why do you not instead expend your efforts to expand gov't control where it can do more good. It is not a call for that gov't control, it is an attempt to point out how silly your arguments are.

 Easy E wrote:

We aren't talking designer intent. We are talking the purpose of the tool. Intent and purpose are not the same.

For example, a Hammer* can be used to kill and maim things. However, it's purpose is to build things. A car is designed to tranpsort stuff from point a to point B, but it can also kill and maim people. A chair's purpose is to be sat upon, but you can use it to help tame lions.

What is a gun's purpose? To kill and maim stuff. It can also be used for fun, but that is not its purpose. Note, I'm not saying that the purpose to kill and maim is inherently bad. There are many times where it is perfectly valid to need to kill and maim something. Purpose is not an emotional judgement, it is a simple statement of...urm....purpose.


*Unless it is a Warhammer and then the purpose is to kill and miam things.

Sledgehammers are not designed to build, nor are jackhammers. Obviously warhammers... But then the same can be said of Axes. As an axe often times is designed to chop wood, unless it's a battleaxe. Or a Viking styled axe. A racing car is not designed to transport stuff from point A to B. We have things that take racing cars from A to B, and the racing car goes from A to A to A to A (ad nauseam) Horses have been bred to take things from A to B as well, however we also have War horses (destriers, etc), same thing with Humvees, Snatches (for you Brits), Bulldogs, Abrams, Bradleys, etc.

I already pointed out, there are Target/competition firearms that are designed specifically with competitions and paper targets in mind. So ultimately, a firearm is really simply designed to push a small (ish) projectile at a high rate of speed in a desired direction. Nothing more, nothing less. Intent and purpose comes from the person owning/holding such a firearm.

Arming teachers is not a great idea in the long run because of the simple repercussions of quite literally putting lethal items meant to kill people in class.


Not only would you have to certify EVERY single teacher in ALL class rooms to use a weapon, but to give special classes to kids explaining why Ms. Doe is now packing heat.

Good luck explaining to a 7 year old that your teacher is trained to protect you because at any time a random shooter might come in a try to kill you all.

I actually support the plan to put trained POLICE officers in schools, and that we should raise taxes to fund it.

I do not support however giving firearms to every teacher so we can turn the house of learning into a spawn containment bunker complete with heat packing elderly subs.

 Crablezworth wrote:
He purchased the shotgun legally, why am I not surprised? It's almost like a lot kids who fit the profile of "socially awkward" aren't "down" enough with their local criminal element to purchase a firearm illegally. It's a good thing this 18 year old was sold a shotgun legally, I mean he could have got one at a gun show for all I know, no point revisiting that at all. Nope. Instead, the obvious solution here is armed security officer or team of armed security officers in every school paid for by... magic?

You can buy a shotgun in Canada and the UK as well.

 Alexzandvar wrote:
.


Not only would you have to certify EVERY single teacher in ALL class rooms to use a weapon, but to give special classes to kids explaining why Ms. Doe is now packing heat.

No, you wouldn't. Districts that have started to implement don't announce which teachers are carrying either. The purpose is to have a few unknown-to-potential-assailants people carrying to dissuade from attacking. The only problem with uniformed resource officers is they become a target.

Good luck explaining to a 7 year old that your teacher is trained to protect you because at any time a random shooter might come in a try to kill you all.

Based on this quote I'll assume you've not worked with kids a lot. You just don't tell them anything. If they ask, you reply with a simple but true answer like, "they're there to protect you from any bad guys."

I actually support the plan to put trained POLICE officers in schools, and that we should raise taxes to fund it.

Lovely idea aside from the whole funding it issue. You can't simply raise taxes to do so.

I do not support however giving firearms to every teacher so we can turn the house of learning into a spawn containment bunker complete with heat packing elderly subs.

Ignorant and moronic statement.

There are some good arguments not to put restrictions on weapons, but the "cars kill more people" argument is really stupid and you should stop making it because it makes you look either intellectually dishonest or ignorant.

Cars are a vital part of the infastructure of a modern economy. Cars are used continuously throughout the day by people all across society. Far more people have cars than have firearms. People who would normally be disbarred from owning a firearm need to have access to cars or they are relegated to an unemployable underclass. My understanding is that due to the spread out nature of the US, public transport and pedestrian transport are impractical- the US NEEDS cars to function and due to this practically every adult outside of city centres owns one and will drive them multiple times a week.

The comparisons to guns are ridiculous because:
-Outside of certain professions guns are not a requirement for work (cars are needed for commuting)
-Far fewer people have guns.
-Those people who have guns are required to use them far less frequently than people who have cars are required to use cars.

For all of these reasons, the statistics on gun and car death are simply incomparable. Any attempt to compare them without qualification makes you look dishonest or dumb. So please quit it.

From my own perspective, rather than limiting firearms, I would be interested in getting to the social and psychological root of what causes spree killing, and then trying to minimise or eradicate the things which cause them. The gun is the tool with which mass killings are carried out, however the will to carry out a mass killing is a far more important component. It's just a lot more uncomfortable and difficult to examine these reasons, which is why gun control is a popular alternative.

But actually, I have worked with Children.

I know that you cannot do thing like bring lethal weapons into the class room setting with out explaining to every single student what it is and what it is there for.

Not doing so opens the door for hundreds of liability suits. You can't just not tell the kids, as it will also probably cause a massive upset if they find out anyway. Better to be honest.

and no, its not a ignorant and moronic statement, in many peoples rush to protect our children many do not understand the ramifications of turning what supposed to be a house of education into a place were we arm people just because were not willing to pay for actual guards.


No matter what if this was implemented the law would be struck down instantly anyway, some idiot teacher would get pissed of at his kids and kill a couple, and then good bye teachers with guns.

i'm not a big fan of using the more deaths from cars argument, I think its easier to make an argument against booze and drunk driving.

 Alexzandvar wrote:
Arming teachers is not a great idea in the long run because of the simple repercussions of quite literally putting lethal items meant to kill people in class.


Not only would you have to certify EVERY single teacher in ALL class rooms to use a weapon, but to give special classes to kids explaining why Ms. Doe is now packing heat.

Good luck explaining to a 7 year old that your teacher is trained to protect you because at any time a random shooter might come in a try to kill you all.

I actually support the plan to put trained POLICE officers in schools, and that we should raise taxes to fund it.

I do not support however giving firearms to every teacher so we can turn the house of learning into a spawn containment bunker complete with heat packing elderly subs.

It's implementation is that the teachers who are armed are not "publicized", and the weapon is conceal carried. Specialized training is also given.

Also, many police cant hit the side of a barn. They only shoot for quals, once maybe two times a year. I'd rather have a person who has been both trained to deal with children as well as employ a firearm in a special circumstance that a school setting would present than have a police officer (many times retired), who might be there only for show.

ROs are a good start, but it shouldnt end there, especially in large schools.

 Spacemanvic wrote:

It's implementation is that the teachers who are armed are not "publicized", and the weapon is conceal carried. Specialized training is also given.

That "specialized training" is what?
How is the weapon "conceal carried"?
Does the style of carry differ from elementary school to middle to high school?

Also, many police cant hit the side of a barn. They only shoot for quals, once maybe two times a year. I'd rather have a person who has been both trained to deal with children as well as employ a firearm in a special circumstance that a school setting would present than have a police officer (many times retired), who might be there only for show.

Way to generalize.

The quality of shooting from police differs from department to department, just like it does with everyone in the private sector. And quite frankly the idea that they "only shoot for qualification" is not unreasonable given that police officers do work pretty hectic schedules--and their work does not necessarily end when they go home.
But to pretend that teachers, a profession that work just as many hours outside of their actual work, would have the same time to devote to going to a range as someone who shoots competitively or as recreation is just ridiculous.

ROs are a good start, but it shouldnt end there, especially in large schools.

Actually, yeah. It should. The simple problem though is that many resource officers(who, incidentally do receive specialized training in dealing with children and the situations that might arise from dealing with children) have to cover multiple schools during the course of the day or are the only officers at a single large school because the city/county won't actually put the money in to release more officers from patrol duty to work as resource officers.

To use an anecdotal example, the high school I went to had two officers who covered three schools. The high school, middle school, and elementary school were all walking distance from each other and shared sports fields/parking lots. This kind of set up is not unheard of and if something similar to this shooting were to happen then that's two officers to effectively cover three schools.

 Kanluwen wrote:

That "specialized training" is what?
How is the weapon "conceal carried"?
Does the style of carry differ from elementary school to middle to high school?

Monthly tactical training courses. Regularly logged range time. Not real hard to implement either of these.

Additionally, I can't tell if your concealed carry question is sarcastic or just ingnorant of how concealed carry works. If you're concealed carrying, the firearm is Carried in a way that another person can't tell you're carrying. Typically for men this is an IWB holster (inside the waistband). Google it and you'll find tons if options for doing so.

.
But to pretend that teachers, a profession that work just as many hours outside of their actual work, would have the same time to devote to going to a range as someone who shoots competitively or as recreation is just ridiculous.

The premise beind having teachers carry is that there are plenty of them that already recreationally shoot or have their CCW. I know at my wife's school, there are roughly 30 teachers and about 1/3 of them already recreationally shoot. Another 5 (that I know of) already have their CCW.

Actually, yeah. It should. The simple problem though is that many resource officers(who, incidentally do receive specialized training in dealing with children and the situations that might arise from dealing with children) have to cover multiple schools during the course of the day or are the only officers at a single large school because the city/county won't actually put the money in to release more officers from patrol duty to work as resource officers.

So please, enlighten us as to how thus is going to be funded then.

To use an anecdotal example, the high school I went to had two officers who covered three schools. The high school, middle school, and elementary school were all walking distance from each other and shared sports fields/parking lots. This kind of set up is not unheard of and if something similar to this shooting were to happen then that's two officers to effectively cover three schools.

And this is more effective to you than having people at every building?

Further, very few districts have all of their buildings within walking distance of one another.

 cincydooley wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

That "specialized training" is what?
How is the weapon "conceal carried"?
Does the style of carry differ from elementary school to middle to high school?

Monthly tactical training courses. Regularly logged range time. Not real hard to implement either of these.

Who teachers the courses?

Additionally, I can't tell if your concealed carry question is sarcastic or just ingnorant of how concealed carry works. If you're concealed carrying, the firearm is Carried in a way that another person can't tell you're carrying. Typically for men this is an IWB holster (inside the waistband). Google it and you'll find tons if options for doing so.

The word is "ignorant". Spell it right if you're going to try calling someone it.

I'm quite aware of what concealed carrying is but I am also aware that it can be quite easy to spot someone concealed carrying.

.
But to pretend that teachers, a profession that work just as many hours outside of their actual work, would have the same time to devote to going to a range as someone who shoots competitively or as recreation is just ridiculous.

The premise beind having teachers carry is that there are plenty of them that already recreationally shoot or have their CCW. I know at my wife's school, there are roughly 30 teachers and about 1/3 of them already recreationally shoot. Another 5 (that I know of) already have their CCW.

What kind of school does your wife teach at? 30 teachers sounds exceptionally small for anything outside of a private daycare.

Actually, yeah. It should. The simple problem though is that many resource officers(who, incidentally do receive specialized training in dealing with children and the situations that might arise from dealing with children) have to cover multiple schools during the course of the day or are the only officers at a single large school because the city/county won't actually put the money in to release more officers from patrol duty to work as resource officers.

So please, enlighten us as to how thus is going to be funded then.

I don't know. Ideally people would buck up and realize that school resource officers are actually a really good thing in that it gives students someone to reach out to for a large variety of issues.

To use an anecdotal example, the high school I went to had two officers who covered three schools. The high school, middle school, and elementary school were all walking distance from each other and shared sports fields/parking lots. This kind of set up is not unheard of and if something similar to this shooting were to happen then that's two officers to effectively cover three schools.

And this is more effective to you than having people at every building?

Where did I say it was effective? The point that should have been blatantly obvious in light of my statement that can be summed up to "More resource officers would be a good thing" is that it was not effective. Ideally each school should have had their own resource officer.

Further, very few districts have all of their buildings within walking distance of one another.

I'm not sure how true that might be.

In my experience (as a student and as a teacher education student), school districts with a large number of students had their schools spread out over the district. You'd have an elementary school here, a middle school there, and a high school centrally located elsewhere. Sometimes (but not always) an elementary school might be linked to a middle school, and a MS linked to a HS (but this is rarer than it sounds!). On the flip side, school districts that have to cover a large area of land tend to have all of their schools in a centralized campus, especially places that bus students in from around the district (we're talking rural schools, like where Drive your Tractor to School is a huge day)

 Spacemanvic wrote:
Also, many police cant hit the side of a barn. They only shoot for quals, once maybe two times a year..

So you think that a teacher who is told to have a gun will do any more than the minimum to qualify to carry said gun... why?

 Kanluwen wrote:

Who teachers the courses?

Any number of private agencies. In the Cincinnati area, there are no fewer than 3 separate places that do it.

Tactical Defense Institute is simply an example of one.

The word is "ignorant". Spell it right if you're going to try calling someone it.

Ahh the last gasp of the ineffectual argument. Please, forgive my errant 'n'. But you know, If that's all you've got.

I'm quite aware of what concealed carrying is but I am also aware that it can be quite easy to spot someone concealed carrying.

I'll just have to disagree here. As long as you aren't wearing skin tight clothing, a good IWB is pretty much invisible.

What kind of school does your wife teach at? 30 teachers sounds exceptionally small for anything outside of a private daycare.

She works at one of the 5 elementary schools in a district with a total enrollment of nearly 8,000.

I don't know. Ideally people would buck up and realize that school resource officers are actually a really good thing in that it gives students someone to reach out to for a large variety of issues.

Yeah, you'd think those same people would vote to pass levies to ensure that special education classes and gifted programs and general funding isn't cut. They don't. To think they'd vote for ROs is foolhardy.

To use an anecdotal example, the high school I went to had two officers who covered three schools. The high school, middle school, and elementary school were all walking distance from each other and shared sports fields/parking lots. This kind of set up is not unheard of and if something similar to this shooting were to happen then that's two officers to effectively cover three schools.

Where did I say it was effective? The point that should have been blatantly obvious in light of my statement that can be summed up to "More resource officers would be a good thing" is that it was not effective. Ideally each school should have had their own resource officer.

I bolded it for you. Ideal situations rarely happen in schools. Ideally a teacher would have no more than 22ish students. Doesn't prevent my wife from having 32 in a class.

I'm not sure how true that might be.

Seems to be a growing trend.

I'll continue to use my wife's district as an example. There are 9 schools in the district, 5 elementary, 3 junior high, one high school. None it the buildings are within a Mile of each other. Some are as far apart as 10 miles.

 Alexzandvar wrote:
But actually, I have worked with Children.

I know that you cannot do thing like bring lethal weapons into the class room setting with out explaining to every single student what it is and what it is there for.

Not doing so opens the door for hundreds of liability suits. You can't just not tell the kids, as it will also probably cause a massive upset if they find out anyway. Better to be honest.

and no, its not a ignorant and moronic statement, in many peoples rush to protect our children many do not understand the ramifications of turning what supposed to be a house of education into a place were we arm people just because were not willing to pay for actual guards.


No matter what if this was implemented the law would be struck down instantly anyway, some idiot teacher would get pissed of at his kids and kill a couple, and then good bye teachers with guns.

WOW, sensationalize much?

I dont think anyone is advocating arming ALL teachers. Of course, a selection process is involved in order to weed out potential issues.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 SilverMK2 wrote:

 Spacemanvic wrote:
Also, many police cant hit the side of a barn. They only shoot for quals, once maybe two times a year..

So you think that a teacher who is told to have a gun will do any more than the minimum to qualify to carry said gun... why?

You seem to lack a fundamental understanding of firearm ownership, and how this implementation works.

A teacher would not be "told" to carry a firearm, it is a personal decision, one that requires the teacher to assume certain responsibilities. A teacher willing to carry is almost always someone with an interest in firearms, as well as the disciplines that are involved. It's being a part of the gun culture. Many police (especially in metro areas) do not come from a gun background, and so for them, carrying a firearm and using one is more of a chore than anything else, so they do the bare minimum. It's akin to painting minis: some view it as a detestable chore, while others find it relaxing.

In a day to day basis, many of us are surrounded by firearms without even knowing it. Armed guards/police are the most visible, but there is also the concealed carrier, who could be a soccer mom, grandfather, corner grocer etc.

 Alexzandvar wrote:

I know that you cannot do thing like bring lethal weapons into the class room setting with out explaining to every single student what it is and what it is there for.

Not doing so opens the door for hundreds of liability suits. You can't just not tell the kids, as it will also probably cause a massive upset if they find out anyway. Better to be honest.

and no, its not a ignorant and moronic statement, in many peoples rush to protect our children many do not understand the ramifications of turning what supposed to be a house of education into a place were we arm people just because were not willing to pay for actual guards.


No matter what if this was implemented the law would be struck down instantly anyway, some idiot teacher would get pissed of at his kids and kill a couple, and then good bye teachers with guns.

If the children never see the firearm in class, then the teacher is doing their job as trained (as has been pointed out, the few school districts implementing this are doing so as a CONCEALED measure... meaning no one knows WHO is packing, much less how many)

It's fairly ignorant, because in your view, all teachers are carrying around a Barret .50 cal Rifle, or a Mossberg shotgun, something that they have strapped to their backs all the time, when the few places considering these sorts of measures are, again, going for a concealed approach. I know that the background checks for teachers can be somewhat rigorous, but they are obviously going to be doubly hard on the ones who are volunteering/being selected for the additional duty of protecting their kids.


And, as we all seem to understand, the Government has taken the recent stance that while children are on school property/in school, they BELONG to the state, which means that it is the DUTY of the teachers to protect them. And yeah, I would much rather have my kids' teacher carrying a firearm, because if someone does try another one of these events, I would much rather have someone more than a uniformed rent-a-cop or almost-deputy who is going to either be nowhere near useful, or will be the first target.

 CptJake wrote:
You're (as usual) building a straw man. The point isn't 'tackle the big things', it is 'since you are willing to accept the big things without enhanced Gov't interference in our lives, accept the small ones that already have constitutional protection without calling for MOAR gov't interference and further attempting to dilute the constitutional protections/individual rights'.

The argument bluntly put is if you want to use the gov't to further infringe on my rights in an attempt to stop a minuscule amount of deaths, why do you not instead expend your efforts to expand gov't control where it can do more good. It is not a call for that gov't control, it is an attempt to point out how silly your arguments are.

No. I want people to stop equating car accidents with firearm deaths.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 Easy E wrote:

We aren't talking designer intent. We are talking the purpose of the tool. Intent and purpose are not the same.

For example, a Hammer* can be used to kill and maim things. However, it's purpose is to build things. A car is designed to tranpsort stuff from point a to point B, but it can also kill and maim people. A chair's purpose is to be sat upon, but you can use it to help tame lions.

What is a gun's purpose? To kill and maim stuff. It can also be used for fun, but that is not its purpose. Note, I'm not saying that the purpose to kill and maim is inherently bad. There are many times where it is perfectly valid to need to kill and maim something. Purpose is not an emotional judgement, it is a simple statement of...urm....purpose.


*Unless it is a Warhammer and then the purpose is to kill and miam things.

Sledgehammers are not designed to build, nor are jackhammers. Obviously warhammers... But then the same can be said of Axes. As an axe often times is designed to chop wood, unless it's a battleaxe. Or a Viking styled axe. A racing car is not designed to transport stuff from point A to B. We have things that take racing cars from A to B, and the racing car goes from A to A to A to A (ad nauseam) Horses have been bred to take things from A to B as well, however we also have War horses (destriers, etc), same thing with Humvees, Snatches (for you Brits), Bulldogs, Abrams, Bradleys, etc.

I already pointed out, there are Target/competition firearms that are designed specifically with competitions and paper targets in mind. So ultimately, a firearm is really simply designed to push a small (ish) projectile at a high rate of speed in a desired direction. Nothing more, nothing less. Intent and purpose comes from the person owning/holding such a firearm.

Okay, not to get all Platonic, but I'm talking about the idealized form of an object to give it purpose. Sure, we can make specific versions of things that do very specific roles. When you think of a car, what is it's purpose. When you think of a hammer, what is its purpose. When you think of a chair what is its purpose. Of course, we can get all specific but at that point are we talking about the ideal and its purpose or are we talking about something different? In a nut shell, you are trying to argue the semantics of the thing.

I guess it doesn't matter that much, its just somethign that nugs me. I really don't want people to take anyone elses guns away. If you need a gun for whatever reason, I really don't care. Have it, it is a constitutionally protected right and was upheld by the SC. However, that doesn't mean I want people forcing guns into every aspect of American life either.

I just thought of something.

Put a wall mounted gun safe in every classroom.

Label it clearly in hazard stripes "Danger: Loaded Firearm!"

Tell every teacher that unless they were trained they will not be issued the code to access the firearm.

Get the local paper to publish articles about the plan.

Get the word out that every classroom has a firearm and some of the teachers have been trained to use them.

Final step: Don't actually train any of the teachers nor emplace any firearms.

To Frazzaled: To legally buy a gun in Canada you need to have a Firearms licence much like a drivers licence. Now there are two categories with this licence unrestricted and restricted fire arms under unrestricted are shotguns and long guns used for hunting and such, Restricted are pistols and other semi automatic rifles think AR 15. To get this licence you first must take a certified gun safety course there is one for each classification when you pass these course including the exam you can than apply for the licence. Once you apply the government of Canada conducts an pretty extensive investigation on you including background check, credit check, who your friends and family are and if they have any links to criminal activity, they even do a small physiological examination on you if any red flags pop up say cause you said something stupid on facebook you are denied. Once you have this licence than you can go and buy a gun legally.
It dose not matter if you are in the Military or the Police if you want to own a firearm than you must have this licence. With out this licence witch can also be used as photo ID you will not get a gun legally anywhere in Canada.