NRA reccomends armed officers in all schools

[NoobCrawler]

cbr6fs, I think you're missing the reason for pro gunners stance here. I say that because you always bring up "being selfish for your hobby" nonsense. I guess you've failed to see(many times) people mention it is our right to bear arms. It doesn't say our right to bear some arms. It is the right as Americans(maybe that's why you can't really understand. Not a shot at you, it's just you're not from here)to own those weapons. While I may not believe that our society is going to decline to the point of our citizens need to dust those guns off and point them at our government if it came down to it, but it's their right.

[Nabil]

I just wanted to point out that the NRA's plan is literally the plot from Kindergarten Cop....

That is all

[DUDE]

Originally Posted by JokersWild

Oh im there on point with you also that it is further than the media

Yes it does, now don't take this wrong. Like what cbr6fs said. I have know more than a few gun owners who have bought tactical semi automatic rifles that do it because they are "cool" "bad ass" and all that. Nothing wrong with that, but when it becomes a sensation of a must have, I see a problem. They really are not a must have, they are made to do a job really good, kill with the most efficiency that can be had outside of a full auto weapon in it's class. That's a fact

I myself have had many of these guns. Here is the list.

AR 15
AK 47
M1
30 Carbine
Mini 14
Mini 30
SKS
M 14
HK 91

I loved every one of these guns. But did I need them? no. I know it's a choice and should not be taken away. As far as home defence? I prefer a shot gun, like My Mossberg 500. I personally don't see a need to be firing off a high cap semi auto in my home. Personal defence? I can do that plenty good with an old school 8 round 1911. Gotta have one in the pipe.

I sold all those long guns listed above a long time ago. Made some bank on some because they where pre ban. I more or less out grew that "cool" factor on guns and now like traditional old school right now. That's just me.

There is a lot of truth to what cbr6fs has said about these type of guns. It's just the hard core gun owner is never going to admit it or receive it as any thing that makes sense. There was a time in my life I felt the same way.

It's time to take a good hard look at what we as gun owners have become. I know it isn't right to say that, but it's how I feel. There is also a lot of money behind what is said today on guns, and the ones behind it do not want to lose that.

flame away, I'm done.

[JokersWild]

Originally Posted by DUDE

flame away, I'm done.

Figured it wouldnt be long till you swayed the other way. I like agreeing to dis agree with you anywho.....

I still dont see any information on exactly what these "types of guns" you put it are.

I build my own guns..... be it any of my ARs all the way up to my Sten MK III. Now we are not talking built as an AR with junk snapped on it. I build from stripped uppers and lowers...... as are the rest and was my Sten being de milled and all. I build them for what I want and as a hobby for myself. I may sell some or trade for other projects I would like. I see these quite different others and really trying to see the points that you made above but I just cant.

You said you did not need your guns.... well you dont need your crawlers either. Hell I dont need a girlfriend but I keep her around not of necessity but pretty much gives me something to do after work.

I do say again that laws pertaining to firearms and ownership should be tightened up where they need be but banning firearms in areas where they have nothing to do with the topic or situations that have happened in the past in a reality setting is just stupid.

I will again go back to James Brady...... who pushed for laws against high cap in semi auto weapons (nothing over 10 rounds in pistol) when he was shot with a .22 cal revolver that was not high cap nor had ability of being high cap.

Did this situation to you have warrant for the ban.... really answer it truthfully according to what happened with james brady as your source?

By using the past "assault weapon" ban as the guidelines would they if still in effect change anything that has happened in the past?

[DUDE]

All right I lied, I'm back, damn it!

No, an AWB will not work. I see your point on owning the type of guns you have. You are in the minority of those who own them it seems. Like you said, it's a hobby to you. You respect what it is, and I am sure a really responsible gun owner.

But you know that probably there are many more out there that own a gun like an AR 15 that have them because they are cool and make them feel like a bad ass. Now, IF, and this is too late for this, from the beginning. The "assault weapon" was made harder to get. Do you think we would have so many out there? Buy harder, I mean it will cost you above average money to own one beside the initial cost.

It would be like owning a 200mph super car. They do what they do better than anything, but are expensive to own.

Instead of banning, from the beginning they should have been permitted with a yearly cost. A guy like you or me would of probably paid that price to own one, you love the hobby part of it and like to collect I am sure.

The average Joe wouldn't have paid that price, and there for there wouldn't be so many out there, thus reducing the chance of a nut getting one.

I have been shooting since I was 16. I remember is was a rarity to even see an AR or an AK. Even in a LGS there weren't hardly any. Then you started seeing maybe 5 or so at a gun store. Lately the walls have been lined with them. Now it seems the norm is to have one instead of a good range/hunting gun. They have been marketed and made popular buy mass exposure. Now it has become an excess and made bad buy a few.

It's like what happened to wheelin. It got exposed buy the internet, and bam! Everybody had to do it. It got to be too big and ruined buy a few. Now look where we are at. The majority paid a price from a few. Now it is going to happen with "assault weapons" as the media likes to call them.

I don't know what would work to keep bad things from happening like school shootings and multiple murders. I geuss if we want to keep the "assault weapons". We as a nation will have to have armed guards at any mass gathering type of public places. We are also going to have to pay for it some way.

[jetboat]

This thread has lots of talk and not very many numbers




The US has approx 314 million people. That means there is some where around 276 million legal firearms. That means approx 46 million are semi automatic rifles. That means .00000002% of legally owned semi automatic rifles were used in this school shooting. Since he wasn't a legal gun owner, we cant even run the percentage of legal gun owners involved in the shooting.


So, should the other 99.9999998% of legally owned semi auto rifles be banned?

Lets up the number of legally owned evil rifles used in crime to 1000. That would be .00002% of all legally owned. So that means 99.99998% of legally owned evil rifles were NOT used in crimes.


SOME gun control is a good thing. I agree with a quick back ground check or even a prevalidation (Like IL foid card should be). Its a way to keep criminals and the mentally ill from buying a gun legally. That's about as far as I go.

The point of an armed guard at a school is NOT to shoot the shooter. The point is a deter ant. It makes people think twice because there is a very good chance they will be stopped before they ever get inside.

[cbr6fs]

Originally Posted by War Pig

I get it now, this cbr guy is European, that explains alot.

Over 40,000 people get killed by automobiles every year in the US. Last year 348 people were killed by rifles, I would assume that a small percentage of that is from assault rifles. Please don't tell me that regulating rifles that holds more than 5 rounds is going to change anything. It would take my lifetime for the government to round up all the "dangerous" rifles in the US. Don't be stupid.

We are not talking in generalities now though, we are talking about an extremely SPECIFIC problem i.e. mass murder by one individual in 1 incident.

Yes these types of gun are fun to fire, i agree absolutely BUT they're also being used as tools for lunatics to create mass murder.
A job these guns are specifically extremely good at.

Originally Posted by War Pig

The biggest issue nowadays is the worldwide coverage of events like the one in CT. It's instant "stardom" for these losers that haven't done anything worthwhile in their lives. I would be willing to bet that without the in depth coverage that these shootings get, many of them wouldn't happen. These are sick people wanting to leave their mark on history. With the violence on TV, in movies, video games and the evening news it just seems like every day life to these people. They see that and say "nobody has ever listened to me before, if I do something crazy then everyone will know who I was".

Agree 100%
The media HAS to take some responsibility.

There are countries around the world where people have more guns and more deadly guns BUT this sort of thing doesn't happen anywhere near as regular as in the USA.

So something there is different, be it people not understanding the difference between fame and infamy, or they just don't care.

I also believe it's extremely important to stress that although the media or society does play some responsibility, they are only reporting on events that HAVE occurred.
So this needs to be taken in context.

Originally Posted by War Pig

Banning any firearms isn't going to change anything. The change will come from teaching our children the right things, getting the mentally ill help, and watching out for each other.

I'm also pretty sure that any trained police officer that sees a 20 year old person walking toward the front door of a school with an AR15 is going to make it tough for that person to do much damage in that school......

I'm not in favour of banning firearms, i never said or insinuated that's my view.

I'm saying that there NEEDS to be restrictions, there NEEDS to be tougher licensing and people NEED to take responsibility for their guns and keep them locked up where kids do not have the code or access to them.

The more deadly the potential of a gun then the more restrictions that need to be put in place.

Not everyone is morally or mentally responsible enough to be let loose with a gun like the AR15.
Teenagers are an absolute mess at that time of their lives, a jilted boyfriend, a humiliated kid at school and access to weapons like this is a recipe for another mass murder events.

Originally Posted by JokersWild

Really I dont even know where to start with you...... Im assuming you live in Athens greece? Im going to go out on a limb here to try and see even slightly you skewed views

You use words that are seeming like you are on fox news. mass murders. Needs to be a little more detail on your idea behind using this word because to me its a media term. Im also sure you have more bombings in your country than we do here?? Am i correct? So is this the blind leading the retarded??

Detail.

You know that 20 kids were executed some with as many as 11 bullets riddling their little bodies right?

And your asking for more detail behind my idea what a mass murder is!!!!!!

Mass murder = 26 people being murdered by one scrawny 20 year old kid in this instance.

Originally Posted by JokersWild

AR15...... have you shot one?? really with out googling know what it is and what it shoots? Are you considering it an "assault weapon"? and what is your definition of an assault weapon? Now im sure I will be corrected on this but I have still been getting too much conflicting info on if the AR was actually used or just found in the car. But still you say "armed to the teeth" I dont think a glock, a sig and a bushy are armed to the teeth.

We're not talking about me, i wasn't the person that placed a weapon of mass murder in the hands of a crazy kid.
I'm also not the one that killed all those people.

You can sit there and pick through each word like "armed to the teeth" as much as you want, the fact still remains that Adam Lanza was armed enough to murder 26 people.
With a event on the magnitude of THAT much tragedy i think it's shows a distinct lack of respect for the victims to troll and pick at words.

26 people murdered do you get that?

Originally Posted by JokersWild

Also what firearms do you own? And without showing me a BS interweb picture I want to see a picture of your safe. You can post a note on the top that says RCC rocks. I have my safe and know others on here do as well..... I just think half of this you are feeding us is BS propaganda by a person that is in a nation that has had more problems than a math book. I mean hell you have had 500+ immigrants admitted to hospitals in first half of this year regarding racist attacks. Ouch your city streets are safe. And hell of debt issues.... im sure next you will tell us how to fix our economy as well

AGAIN this is not about me, it makes absolutely no difference what experience or firearms i own and frankly it's none of your business.

It also makes absolutely no difference what problems Greece is having, it doesn't reduce the suffering of 26 families and it doesn't bring back 20 kids.

You can try and deflect your poor morals and lack of respect for these victims as much as you want, but laughing at another countries problems does absolutely nothing to fix the problem.

The problem of crazies having access to weapons of mass murder, going out and murdering your countrymen and woman into double figures on a yearly bass if not more.

Originally Posted by JokersWild

The rebuttals have nothing to do with the amount slain it has to do with the comments you posted..... i replied then you would rebuttal to my reply.

There are so many areas to hit with you not really sure if i can cover them all.....

I think you need to take a read over here for a min or two and then come back..... let it soak in a bit and then post

America – Freedom vs Freedom | Eight Minutes of Fame

dont forget to read all the links.

Im sorry to the OP that this has strayed way off topic. If you feel this is moving in the direction that you didnt want it to go let me know and I will quit posting in here.

I will say since I prolly never did I agree that armed officers in schools is a good idea

I will have a read later.

Originally Posted by NoobCrawler

cbr6fs, I think you're missing the reason for pro gunners stance here. I say that because you always bring up "being selfish for your hobby" nonsense. I guess you've failed to see(many times) people mention it is our right to bear arms. It doesn't say our right to bear some arms. It is the right as Americans(maybe that's why you can't really understand. Not a shot at you, it's just you're not from here)to own those weapons. While I may not believe that our society is going to decline to the point of our citizens need to dust those guns off and point them at our government if it came down to it, but it's their right.

Makes absolutely no difference to me or the victims though does it?

If defending your right to enjoy what is effectively hobby results in crazies getting their hands easily on weapons of mass murder then something is amiss somewhere.

I'm not saying ban all firearms, i'm saying that as a responsible adult people have a moral responsibility to ensure that these sort of weapons do NOT get into the hands of people that want to cause death on a mass scale.

I'm not even saying "ban AR15's" either

I'm saying that people NEED to be more responsible, and as history and the amount of mass murders recently have proven people CANNOT be left to their devices as they are NOT treating their firearms responsibly.

If they were then all these tragedies from Columbine high through to Sandy Hook would not have happened.

So restrictions need to be bought into place to force people to act responsibly with the firearms.

To clarify,
It's obvious the majority of fire arms owners ARE responsible, BUT if a small percentage can't act responsibly with guns (as history has proven) then restrictions need to be put into place to force these small minority of people to be responsible with their firearms.

As an example lets say that you have a AR15 and you enjoy shooting at the range.
Because you are a responsible firearms owner you keep your gun locked in a safe when not in use and you supported a new legislation that required by law that these types of guns were locked in a safe when not in use.

Wouldn't you feel a damn site better if you knew that you enjoying your hobby was not at the expense of innocent people loosing their lives on mass, that you didn't have blood on your hands as a direct result of your hobby?

I've kept guns in safes, i've lived under heavy firearms restrictions, it's NOT that bad honestly.
And even the bad points are nothing in comparison to seeing the suffering we've witnessed in the past week or so.

[Manning]

A nutcase will always find a way to kill people.

I say we ban all nutcases.

[Duuuuuuuude]

Originally Posted by Manning

A nutcase will always find a way to kill people.

I say we ban all nutcases.

All of them? Or just the assault style nut cases?

[cbr6fs]

Originally Posted by Manning

A nutcase will always find a way to kill people.

I say we ban all nutcases.

Problem is though, many of these nutcases seemed relatively normal beforehand.

I think if laws were bought into place where weird people got arrested then as grown adults that play with toy cars i think we'd be up there on the list

In all seriousness though, i do agree nutcases will always find a way to kill people.
So surly the logical step as a society is to try and prevent these people getting their hands on weapons that give them the ability to kill countles innocent people?

Surely we are human beings first, shooting enthusiasts second?

"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." (Edmund Burke)

[Duuuuuuuude]

Originally Posted by cbr6fs

...we are talking about an extremely SPECIFIC problem i.e. mass murder by one individual in 1 incident.

You nailed it. The specific problem here is the individual.

[cbr6fs]

Originally Posted by Duuuuuuuude

You nailed it. The specific problem here is the individual.

I agree.

My point though is that you have a opportunity to restrict the amount of suffering these people are able to achieve.

If ALL guns were banned then i agree there still would have likely to have been a murder that day.
I think it's likely he would have still killed his mother.

But with no guns i personally believe that the teaching staff would have been able to pacify him.
Obviously that's my interpretation, but still you can't argue that if he did have have guns there would have been no where near the amount of death and suffering?

[Duuuuuuuude]

Originally Posted by cbr6fs

I agree.

My point though is that you have a opportunity to restrict the amount of suffering these people are able to achieve.

If ALL guns were banned then i agree there still would have likely to have been a murder that day.
I think it's likely he would have still killed his mother.

But with no guns i personally believe that the teaching staff would have been able to pacify him.
Obviously that's my interpretation, but still you can't argue that if he did have have guns there would have been no where near the amount of death and suffering?

He could have set the place on fire. The death toll could have been higher, and the suffering way more terrible.

[jetboat]

a standard propane tank purchased at home depot for $40 can inflict more damage and carnage than any single fire arm with even 100 rounds of ammunition. All you have to do is pierce, light match, go boom. If your on a suicide mission like this guy, the lack of a gun would do nothing to stop them.

So, ban all propane sales?

[Crimson Rock Crawler]

I just wanted to point out that the NRA's plan is literally the plot from Kindergarten Cop....

That is all

The NRA's suggestion for more armed officers in schools is not "new" by any stretch of the imagination. After Columbine the federal government funded an initiative very much like the plan that the NRA is being demonized over and no one complained about it then. I would rather put my trust in an organization that is committed to protecting what little rights we still have as citizens than a corrupt and distrustful entity known fondly as our federal government

Clinton Pledges Funds to Add Police to Schools - Los Angeles Times

[NoobCrawler]

You can't possibly make sure EVERY person who owns a gun(or anything for that matter) does so responsibly. It's called personal responsibility. Should the mother have been more sponsible, obviously. Should all legal/responsible gun owners be punished because of it, no. There's people out there who aren't responsible with cars, should we ban those? Alcohol? RCs? People don't always act responsible, its just how things go.

[cbr6fs]

Originally Posted by Duuuuuuuude

He could have set the place on fire. The death toll could have been higher, and the suffering way more terrible.

I disagree it would have caused more suffering, there are fire precaution systems in place in all schools and the kids have the opportunity to outrun fire, you can't outrun a bullet.

The other thing is, IF it does turn out that these crazies have turned to murdering people with fire then the situation will need to be revised.

For now though the facts are he murdered 26 people with guns, not bombs, not fire, guns.

Originally Posted by jetboat

a standard propane tank purchased at home depot for $40 can inflict more damage and carnage than any single fire arm with even 100 rounds of ammunition. All you have to do is pierce, light match, go boom. If your on a suicide mission like this guy, the lack of a gun would do nothing to stop them.

So, ban all propane sales?

Again, irrelevant.
As the Greek saying goes "if my auntie had a dick, she'd be my uncle"

You have to act on facts and experiences, you can't just pull a situation out of a hat and use that as any feeble sort of justification.

The facts in this case are he used guns.
Guns were also used in the VAST majority of mass murders in recent USA history as well.

[cbr6fs]

Originally Posted by NoobCrawler

You can't possibly make sure EVERY person who owns a gun(or anything for that matter) does so responsibly. It's called personal responsibility. Should the mother have been more sponsible, obviously. Should all legal/responsible gun owners be punished because of it, no. There's people out there who aren't responsible with cars, should we ban those? Alcohol? RCs? People don't always act responsible, its just how things go.

Again it's irrelevant what damage cars or alcohol do.

The specific problem is that nutters are gaining access to guns and murdering a heart ripping amount of US citizens on a yearly basis.

Some people are not responsible enough or don't have the required skills enough to drive, that's why there is a licensing system in place, rules and regulations on the roads and a system in place to ensure those rules of the road are met.

No one is throwing a temper tantrum about these rules.

Yet when i suggest a stronger licensing system and rules, and a system to ensure these rules are kept for guns, all reasoning goes out the window.

Is it acceptable that these mass murders occur year in year out?
Are you happy that nothing be done?

To me i don't know how folks could sleep at night if they answer yes to both questions, especially when the next mass murder shooting occurs, as it unfortunately and inevitably will.

[Super]

cbr, why is it we can't have "ifs and buts" but you can. If we do this this will happen and if we didn't do this, this wouldn't have happened. What make you the expert?

[Crimson Rock Crawler]

Originally Posted by cbr6fs

The other thing is, IF it does turn out that these crazies have turned to murdering people with fire then the situation will need to be revised.

Oh sh!t.....if the crazies are now murdering people with fire we must act quickly to ban the sales of all matches and fire starting devices and all necessary chemicals and compounds used in the making of matches.....oh the humanity !!!!!