Restricting constitutional feeedoms.

[Gallstones]

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.

You've been thinking about this a lot, haven't you?


As the evil gunman, you'd have to know who the designated defenders are.
I suggest that that be kept out of the public knowledge and such person not wear anything that designates them--no uniform, no badge, no fancy hat with patches.

[Seth]

School gunmen are not known for their steely-eyed iron resolution to fight to the last while bullets buzz around them. The vast majority of them commit suicide the INSTANT they meet any effective resistance or, as in the Connecticut (and Columbine) cases, the police show up and pose a threat to them.

I think it was more a case of being out of ammo, or nearly out, out of ready targets, and not wanting to be taken alive. Do you have any proof that these gunmen are such cowards that they'd surrender or flee if fired at?

Er, because they almost always do. And because they target innocent, unarmed children in schools rather than attacking a police station. The recent killer had hundreds of rounds of ammunition left in his magazines when he shot himself.

He just didn't have the balls to take on someone who could shoot back.

[Jason]

Er, because they almost always do.

There simply isn't enough data points to come to that conclusion, but I'm still interested in how you did.

And because they target innocent, unarmed children in schools rather than attacking a police station. The recent killer had hundreds of rounds of ammunition left in his magazines when he shot himself.

What? You're referring to the shooting at the Batman movie I suppose.

Holds one hundred rounds. How many was he carrying?

He just didn't have the balls to take on someone who could shoot back.

And you arrive at this conclusion, how? Perhaps they set out with the intention of not being taken alive, or not even of leaving the scene alive, but intend to take their own lives?

[Jason]

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.

You've been thinking about this a lot, haven't you?

Thinking about how the suggested hardening of potential targets would work and could fail? Yes.

If you're going about designing a system of defence you have to give thought to how someone would go about penetrating it don't you?

[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.

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.

The trouble with that theory is that the teachers you are referring to are hardly bright enough to know what a Marxist is, let alone be part of some vast conspiracy.

[Gallstones]

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.

You've been thinking about this a lot, haven't you?

Thinking about how the suggesting hardening of potential targets would work and could fail? Yes.

If you're going about designing a system of defence you have to give thought to how someone would go about penetrating it don't you?

Of course.

[Coito ergo sum]

How is being prepared to defend oneself far worse?

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

Nonsense.

I'm sure that happens, but most people don't want to attack first. Where someone does attack first, he's not defending. He's the aggressor.

But, even with the few incidents of people who have honed their skills using them for ill instead of good, how is it worse than forcing innocent people to stand their like sheep while aggressors kill them?

Your theory is like suggesting that it's better for the sheep that they have no defense against wolves. If sheep had a quick reactions, canine teeth and feline claws, that would be "worse" for the sheep because some of them might attack a wolf first?

[Coito ergo sum]

Put your tinfoil hat back on.

I don't feel there is a conspiracy, but it is a crying shame that kids aren't taught basic government and civics in school. Fuck, they don't even teach geography, and half the math teachers think it's unnecessary to have kids do homework. Our schools are, unfortunately, largely huge wastes of money, warehousing children until they graduate idiots, scoring 900 on their scholastic aptitude tests and not knowing who the Vice President of the United States is or what city is the capital of their state.

[laklak]

It's a dismal situation, CES. My daughter didn't know who Robert E. Lee or Jefferson Davis was, but she certainly knew who Frederick Douglas and Abraham Lincoln were. She actually thought Florida was on the winning side in the War of Yankee Aggression.

[Jason]

Should they be taught that the right to bear arms shall not be questioned as well?

[Coito ergo sum]

It's a dismal situation, CES. My daughter didn't know who Robert E. Lee or Jefferson Davis was, but she certainly knew who Frederick Douglas and Abraham Lincoln were. She actually thought Florida was on the winning side in the War of Yankee Aggression.

I will always remember a few years back talking to some friends, and there was my friend's fiance, who not only couldn't say when the Civil War occurred, even roughly the decade, but also could not say if it preceded or followed World War One. She was sure that when you learn history "dates don't matter." LOL. I remember at some point in the 1980s, I think it was, teachers began to follow some dopey principle that the names and dates and such don't matter, and what really matters is "why" things happened. That always struck me as true and false at the same time. Yes, it is true that "why" things happened is very important and probably most important (although also most arguable and politically charged), but it is really impossible to know "why" without knowing who, what, where, when and how, at least to some reasonable level. How can you know "why" they civil war was important without even knowing when it was, who were the major players, where it was fought, what were the major battles and how it started and ended? I mean -- "why" is a much more advanced concept than the facts and events. Kids need to get the facts and events down. Then they can go on to the "whys."

[Coito ergo sum]

Should they be taught that the right to bear arms shall not be questioned as well?

The should be taught that in that particular State that the constitution says that.

It's a very vague statement, incidentally. And, likely, IMO, the shall not be questioned part is a restriction on the State, and not individual people, who also have freedom of conscience and freedom of speech under earlier provisions of that same state constitution.

The US federal constitution refers to slaves counting as 3/5 of a person for electoral purposes. I think kids should be taught that too -- not that it is a good thing, but that it is what the constitution was before it was amended. We need to teach the warts, too.

[Animavore]

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.

Where's the dodge? The IRA and UDA used bombs anyway for their massacres, plus they were mainly in the North, a different country from here. And those groups are largely disbanded so I'm not sure which 'ongoing Troubles' you refer.

[Jason]

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.

You've been thinking about this a lot, haven't you?


As the evil gunman, you'd have to know who the designated defenders are.
I suggest that that be kept out of the public knowledge and such person not wear anything that designates them--no uniform, no badge, no fancy hat with patches.

Suppose the gunman is the son of a teacher at the school. Suppose she knows who is trained and designated to serve the school garrison. Suppose he finds out through her who they are?

Loose lips sink ships. I find it hard to believe that in planning an attack the gunman would find it very difficult to discover who the garrison is. Probably along with where they'll be at a given time of day and what they're carrying, or where their firearms are safely stored. I would think it practically impossible to keep it secret with a few hundred observant and chatty kids in the facility.

[Audley Strange]

Perhaps your schools suck not because of socialism but because anyone with half a brain wouldn't take a job in a school knowing unbalanced kooks love a bit of school shooting. Though frankly I think the curriculum is dumbed down politically rather than educationally (in most places.)