Restricting constitutional feeedoms.

[Coito ergo sum]

Sheesh. You really are afraid of everything, aren't you?

Only people who go around prepared for self defence

People shouldn't be allowed to lock their doors, put up fences around their property, or put in alarms for their cars, and they shouldn't be allowed to prepare for a mugger by training to respond to muggers. LOL.

[Jason]

No. Because doing pushups and other physical training only makes the perps do more pushups and physical training. You're buff, but they're doing squat thrusts with 500lbs weights. Locking your doors only encourages them to 'break' something to enter, causing more damage and loss of property than if you just invited them in for tea and asked them politely what they'd like to take.

[Coito ergo sum]

It is the government responsibility to ensure you are not murdered,

Other than between your own two ears -- where do you get that? Does something in your country's law say that is your government's responsibility?

that doesnt mean they can't guarantee it won't happen but thats tough shit. The alternatives of everyone going around prepared for self defence is far worse

It isn't "tough shit." Where do you get that? Governments are created by people to serve the interests of people. People aren't here to serve the interests of government. Where government can act, then that's really nice. Where it can't, it isn't tough shit -- it's an area where the people must act to handle whatever issue arises on their own. By your logic, people ought not be allowed to forage for food, and if the government fails to provide them their rations, then tough shit. Starve. Right?

How is being prepared to defend oneself far worse?

[mozg]

Or that they don't even know what their state constitution says. I don't know what mine says.

That is easily rectified by obtaining a copy and reading it.

Here is a helpful link http://www.law.indiana.edu/uslawdocs/inconst.html

You may want to think about how Section 32 in Article I aligns with your viewpoints on gun control.

[Seth]

One gun in the hands of a law-abiding citizen, or the Principal at Sandy Hook Elementary could have stopped this attack cold.

That you can't seem to understand this is, well, not at all remarkable.

This is fantasy bullshit borne out of watching too many Die Hard movies (or probably Die Hard was borne from the fantasy). Are you honestly telling me if a gunman had burst into the class and took out an armed teacher straight away before turning his gun on the kids this would be prevented?
Sure another teacher from another class might hear the gun blasts and run to the rescue but by then it would be to late. He may even end up shot himself while the gunman, with his flak jacket, continues unharmed to the now unprotected class that teacher came from.
Not only that killing another human doesn't come easily to most people and even a moments hesitation gives the gunman the advantage.
There have been many of these massacres already and when has the gunman ever been stopped?


The variables are endless. I'm not anti-gun myself but at least be realistic about it.

Yes, there are many variables, and no, a gun in the school in the hands of a law-abiding citizen might not stop the massacre...sometimes you die. But, what we know absolutely for certain is that NO GUNS in the hands of anyone in the school other than the murderer is CERTAIN to end in greater tragedy.

Imagine what might have happened if the Principal, upon hearing the commotion, had pulled out a shotgun or M4 rifle from a locker next to her desk and had engaged the shooter in the main hallway, before he got to the classrooms.

This is essentially what happened in Colorado Springs on December 9, 2007 at the New Life Church. A deranged murderer shot and killed two teenagers and wounded two other people in the parking lot during services. When he walked into the building, bearing several firearms, Jeanne Assam, an armed volunteer security guard (one of several drawn from the congregation) ran towards the assailant firing her weapon and succeeded in wounding him sufficiently that he committed suicide a moment later.

In Pearl, Mississippi, on October 1, 1997, a student shot and killed two and wounded seven others at Pearl High School, then went to his mother's car (whom he had murdered earlier) to go to a nearby elementary school. Vice Principal Joel Myrick, upon hearing the shots, ran outside to his truck to retrieve his .45 pistol, but because he wasn't allowed to carry it, the killer had finished shooting and was trying to escape and go kill more kids. Myrick was able to stop the killer and hold him at gunpoint until the police arrived.

I personally interviewed Myrick at the 1998 Soldier of Fortune convention in Las Vegas, where he was awarded honors for his actions by Publisher Col. Robert K. Brown. Myrick said that if he had been armed when the killer entered the school, he could have prevented the killer from killing more than his first two victims, his ex-girlfriend and another girl.

There are other examples of citizens with guns stopping mass murder sprees. You can go look them up if you like.

I suppose. I get your point. There can be no doubt anyone who takes out such a person is anything but a hero and should be hailed as such. And conversely anyone who was packing and did nothing out of cowardice is best to keep that shit to themselves. Lie and tell everyone you left it at home or in your car that day if you have to.

I'm not fully sure of the argument of an armed society over an unarmed. I live in a country with limited access to guns (shotguns and rifles) legally and with little gun murders and the ones that do occur tend to be between gang members few people have sympathy for. We've no history of (non-terrorist related) massacres but neither did Britain 'til Dunblaine.

I'm happy living here with gun laws as is but if I moved to America I'd almost certainly hit the ranges and own a handgun for protection - so, work that one out

Nice dodge, excluding "terrorist related" killings, given the ongoing nature of the Troubles in Ireland. Keep in mind that the same defenses that apply to deranged murderers apply to terrorist attacks, and that Islamic terrorists have long known that our schools are vulnerable and what the impact of attacking them would be on our morale. Osama and his minions were known to have been planning truck-bomb attacks on American schools, followed up by snipers who would pick off rescuers and any survivors.

Truck bombs are a knotty problem for school security, as are schoolyard snipers, but let's deal with the most common form of attack properly first, and work on the rest.

[Coito ergo sum]

Or that they don't even know what their state constitution says. I don't know what mine says.

That is easily rectified by obtaining a copy and reading it.

Here is a helpful link http://www.law.indiana.edu/uslawdocs/inconst.html

You may want to think about how Section 32 in Article I aligns with your viewpoints on gun control.

Basic civics is really lacking in most people. Most people, I would guess, don't even know that there is a difference between a state constitution and the federal constitution. For some reason, the public schools don't teach about the structure of the American government, how federalism works, and how the President is elected, etc.

[Seth]

Pretty much, yeah. I hate to say it, but I'm noticing a trend in the Black Guard gun-defence force - all of them seem to have hero complexes, a lot of them like to hang around the periphery of the military or police forces, and few of them have any idea what it's like to be in a situation where you're being shot at and have to respond quickly and accurately.

Perhaps, but at least they are willing to consider the eventuality and do something to prepare for it, as opposed to hoplophobes who do not prepare, train or even think about it, which means that if they get caught up in such an event, they will stand there thunderstruck and be mowed down like sheep, because in a crisis you respond with your training, and if you do not train, in a crisis you will do nothing.

...Except perhaps weep in fear and piss your pants when the hot muzzle is pressed against the back of your neck...

[Kristie]

Or that they don't even know what their state constitution says. I don't know what mine says.

That is easily rectified by obtaining a copy and reading it.

Here is a helpful link http://www.law.indiana.edu/uslawdocs/inconst.html

You may want to think about how Section 32 in Article I aligns with your viewpoints on gun control.

Um, I know people in my state can bear arms.
You probably don't even know what my view point is.

[Seth]

Or that they don't even know what their state constitution says. I don't know what mine says.

That is easily rectified by obtaining a copy and reading it.

Here is a helpful link http://www.law.indiana.edu/uslawdocs/inconst.html

You may want to think about how Section 32 in Article I aligns with your viewpoints on gun control.

Basic civics is really lacking in most people. Most people, I would guess, don't even know that there is a difference between a state constitution and the federal constitution. For some reason, the public schools don't teach about the structure of the American government, how federalism works, and how the President is elected, etc.

There's a reason for that. I know you don't want to hear it, but it's true. Civics has not fallen by the wayside of public education, it's been deliberately elided and replaced with Marxist indoctrination. The left-wing school teachers and administrators don't want kids growing up knowing they have civil rights and that the central government is intended to be closely constrained by the Constitution so as to maximize individual liberty as much as possible, because that doesn't fit with the Marxist agenda of breeding new generations of pliable, obedient proletarian dependents who will obey their leaders without any independent thought.

[Jason]

Interesting: Hero syndrome

The hero syndrome is a phenomenon affecting people who seek heroism or recognition, usually by creating a desperate situation which they can resolve. This can include unlawful acts, such as arson. The phenomenon has been noted to affect civil servants, such as firefighters, nurses, police officers, and security guards.[1] Acts linked with the hero syndrome should not be confused with acts of malicious intent, such as revenge on the part of a suspended firefighter or an insatiable level of excitement, as was found in a federal study of more than 75 firefighter arsonists.[2] However, acts of the hero syndrome have been linked to previously failed heroism.[3] The hero syndrome may also be a more general yearning for self-worth.

Would it be a stretch to include blackguards of guns here? They seek to create a desperate situation (ease of access to firearms for every citizen) which 'they' can resolve (the full-scale arming of citizens, especially those in schools and similar facilities)?

Interesting. I may have to do some research and write a paper on it.

[Kristie]

Or that they don't even know what their state constitution says. I don't know what mine says.

That is easily rectified by obtaining a copy and reading it.

Here is a helpful link http://www.law.indiana.edu/uslawdocs/inconst.html

You may want to think about how Section 32 in Article I aligns with your viewpoints on gun control.

Basic civics is really lacking in most people. Most people, I would guess, don't even know that there is a difference between a state constitution and the federal constitution. For some reason, the public schools don't teach about the structure of the American government, how federalism works, and how the President is elected, etc.

There's a reason for that. I know you don't want to hear it, but it's true. Civics has not fallen by the wayside of public education, it's been deliberately elided and replaced with Marxist indoctrination. The left-wing school teachers and administrators don't want kids growing up knowing they have civil rights and that the central government is intended to be closely constrained by the Constitution so as to maximize individual liberty as much as possible, because that doesn't fit with the Marxist agenda of breeding new generations of pliable, obedient proletarian dependents who will obey their leaders without any independent thought.

It's a conspiracy, I tells ya!!!

[MrJonno]

How is being prepared to defend oneself far worse?

True hell, leads to your so called 'law abiding citizen' getting his defence in first.

[Seth]

One gun in the hands of a law-abiding citizen, or the Principal at Sandy Hook Elementary could have stopped this attack cold.

That you can't seem to understand this is, well, not at all remarkable.

This is fantasy bullshit borne out of watching too many Die Hard movies (or probably Die Hard was borne from the fantasy). Are you honestly telling me if a gunman had burst into the class and took out an armed teacher straight away before turning his gun on the kids this would be prevented?
Sure another teacher from another class might hear the gun blasts and run to the rescue but by then it would be to late. He may even end up shot himself while the gunman, with his flak jacket, continues unharmed to the now unprotected class that teacher came from.
Not only that killing another human doesn't come easily to most people and even a moments hesitation gives the gunman the advantage.
There have been many of these massacres already and when has the gunman ever been stopped?


The variables are endless. I'm not anti-gun myself but at least be realistic about it.

Even if you were right, what harm is there if some faculty were armed and trained to deal with these situations? I think if it were known that several of the faculty were armed and prepared for this situation it would never have happened.

I think that Seth didn't mention anything about training and that such 'training' needs to be more well defined. I think also, that if I were a gunman, I'd make sure to target the designated defence force first. Take them out quiet like, one at a time. Maybe with a silencer or something. Like an evil commando.

Like how bank robbers go straight for the security dude! Just like in movies, I tell ya!!

When I was 19, one of my first jobs was working as an armed, uniformed security guard in a bank. My office was a glass-walled office immediately inside the front doors, and easily visible through the front windows. Even back then I was smart enough to know that anybody who was going to rob a bank was going to shoot me first, which is why I wore a bulletproof vest and was never, ever found in the office. Instead I was always skulking behind concrete pillars and around corners watching what was going on without making a target of myself. I quit that post when the bank manager insisted that I sit in the office to "present a visible presence." I told him I'd rather not be the first person killed and that he could shove his job or put himself in the glass "shoot him first" box.

That's why concealed carry is much better, even for bank employees. The crooks at least can't identify you until you draw your weapon, by which time (if you're smart about it) it's too late for them to do anything to stop you.

And that's also why concealed carry by citizens has a crime-reducing effect. Criminals never know whether the grandma they are going to steal a SSI check from is going to pull out a hogleg and blow them away.

That's why the best plan is to arm teachers (like they do in one Texas school), administrators and staff and make some minimal changes to the facilities to better obstruct a killer's ability to get in and roam around the building. There's no single answer, it's layered protocols and equipment that will do the best job of protecting kids.

[Seth]

Or that they don't even know what their state constitution says. I don't know what mine says.

That is easily rectified by obtaining a copy and reading it.

Here is a helpful link http://www.law.indiana.edu/uslawdocs/inconst.html

You may want to think about how Section 32 in Article I aligns with your viewpoints on gun control.

Basic civics is really lacking in most people. Most people, I would guess, don't even know that there is a difference between a state constitution and the federal constitution. For some reason, the public schools don't teach about the structure of the American government, how federalism works, and how the President is elected, etc.

There's a reason for that. I know you don't want to hear it, but it's true. Civics has not fallen by the wayside of public education, it's been deliberately elided and replaced with Marxist indoctrination. The left-wing school teachers and administrators don't want kids growing up knowing they have civil rights and that the central government is intended to be closely constrained by the Constitution so as to maximize individual liberty as much as possible, because that doesn't fit with the Marxist agenda of breeding new generations of pliable, obedient proletarian dependents who will obey their leaders without any independent thought.

It's a conspiracy, I tells ya!!!

Indeed it is, and one that's been going on for more than a hundred years now and is close to reaching fruition unless we can reverse course.

[Kristie]

Put your tinfoil hat back on.