Gun "control" - to protect or disarm the citizens?

Post Reply New Topic

Sad about the Philadelphia shootings on the news today.

Notice how these things come in groups (3 this week in USA plus 1 in Canada last month). Definitly supports a copy-cat theory about psychos. Movie makers (never seen Cape Fear, Quartermass) say their excessive and inappropriate use of guns and violence has no effect on people's behaviour. I don't accept that. It may not affect most but it must at the margin or else, why are $billions spent on advertising?

Anyway, it is said this latest guy came prepared with 6x2 and 4x2 lumber to board up doors. It was premeditated and planned. If he did not have gun, surely this nutter would have used some other leathal device, possible burning the building and killing everyone, not just 3.

The anti gun lobby will use this to tighten the screws on legal gun ownership while ignoring the real problems of society.

Quartermass, your babblings are nonsensical. That article was written by a former California policeman who fled the state because of its insane gun laws...he now resides in the free state of Arizona.
Had the faculty of any of the schools where the recent shootings took place been armed, it is very likely that many children would be alive today who are not.

Now THAT'S nonsensical babbling. Who in their right minds would arm a school?

Bazza tells the truth. Had he not brought a gun, he would have used something else, whether it be a knife, or a molotov.

YOU do not seem to get it through YOUR head that I am merely debating for gun CONTROL, not gun BANNING.

Even Litigious had more intelligent arguments than you.

A violent media/medium does not cause violent incidents like these, but they may act as an accelerant.

I'd like to tell you a story I read in a book about a forensic expert (in ballistics, I believe). He heard about a case where a bank clerk took a gun with him to work, waiting for that "right oppurtunity. (This was in Britain, I think) Anyhoo, one day, an armed robber waltzes right up to him and demands the cash or he'll blow his head off. The clerk pulled his gun out, and said "Make my day."

Net result of the gun "battle" that ensued?

1. The robber was arrested.

2. The clerk, far from being hailed as a hero, was actually fired.

3. The bullets became lead smears on the bulletproof glass.

See how useful having a gun at the right place and the right time is?

Tell me why teachers should forego their right to self defense and the defense of their students because they are in a school? That defirs logic...an armed and trained teacher in each classroom will stop school shootings. It shoud be just another part of the job.

The violent among us will become less vilent if they fear the law abiding...was it Heinlein who said,"An armed society is a polite society?...he was right.

One. "A man with nothing to lose fears nothing."

Two, wouldn't parents get a little nervous with armed teachers, especially teachers who decide to use shooting as an incentive to complete one's school work? It has happened before.....

I know you're going to call me on this, and I'll let you know, I am ready.

"You wanna buy some pegs, Dave? I've got some pegs belonging to you."

No, I am not going to call you. I will let your words speak for themselves. as for the nerverous parents... would they rather have dead children or armed trachers? When was the last time there was a school shooting in Israel? Ever wonder why?

You're getting a bit tiresome ...

That's just stupid.

Because the Palestinians blow the schools up?

Because (and this is more likely) that Israel has a slightly different cultural mindset to the USA?

Lemme put it this way, have you asked one of these parents, should teachers have firearms in class? Then come back a month or so later and ask the same question.

Am I getting tiresome? I just can't stand any dogmatism unless it's my own.

And, believe it or not, a PE teacher used a gun to shoot at students in England, during a cold morning run. It was a boomstick filled with a certain type of normally harmless shot, but I think the ammo was either old or defective. One day, the shot balled together, and nearly killed a student. In fact, for years afterwards, they had to remove lead shot from his body.

Bazza, would YOU let your kids go to a school with teachers who had firearms at the ready?

Sounds like my old boarding school. So what happened to the teacher? Did they say, accidents happen, don't worry its not your fault, its all the gun's fault?

Why do you answer a reasonably stated argument with absurdities?

And actually I am old enough to have been at a school with a cadet unit when cadets were issued with a 303 AND BOLT and took them between home and school on public transport. So no, the teachers did not have guns, but about a third of all the students had fully functioning 303's. Gough Whitlam got rid of cadets in 1973 after vietnam, when I was in year 9.

My answers may seem absurd to you, and some of it patently is, even to me. But it is an absurd world. How else would Columbine or the Holocaust have occurred, or cow's milk and relativity have been discovered?

About the cadet school, yikes. I would be frightened of them. At least with a bolt-action, you can't exactly shoot as fast, although Lee Harvey Oswald (despite the fact that he was slow by Marine standards) managed to pop JFK's head open with a few quickly spaced shots.

From a Carcarno

I think the use of a Carcarno must have been the cause of conspiracy theories.

Don't know the Carcarno? you have to look it up.

Although I'll grant you that FBI tests give some doubts to its accuracy...

How accurate is a fresh Carcarno? And how accurate would a S&W .38 Special be over long distance? A low exit velocity, but is it still accurate?

Now, DaveB78, does Oswald's shooting of Kennedy really fulfill that part of the Second Amendment that is about the arming of citizens to overthrow a tyrant? We'll assume that Oswald shot JFK himself, or was in a tiny cabal of nutters, but only one gunman.

Where have I said that was the purpose of the Second Amendment? Oswald was a criminal, a politically motivated criminal nothing more.

For the record, there was nothing particularly impressive about those shots. The distance was short the time frame was not particulary rapid, well within the capabilities of an average shooter with that weapon.

I'm only saying that the end result of those shots was impressive. Three shots, and that's all it took for JFK's brains to be decorating the plaza. Three shots changed the world, although for better or for worse, I dunno.

Litigious must've said that about the Second. I take the Fifth!

One shot is enough. Why is three impressive?