" a gun obsessive living in fear of society's collapse "

[TakeYouToTasker]

 

 

I'm sorry, but who is it that is trying to attack your family? This is another ridiculous pro-gun romanticism that gets tossed about by loons like yourself. Are you living on the frontier in 1817? Are you Mad Max in a post-nuclear free-for-all? In the minuscule chance that someone really does "attack" your family, you are just as likely to shoot one of your own family members as you are to take out the "attacker." And why would you need multiple weapons to defend yourself? Wouldn't one be enough? Or is the concern an entire fleet of stormtroopers?

 

Let's put this ridiculous justification for a heavily-armed populace to bed. It's absurd.

So violent attacks never happen? This is great news. I'll be sure to alert the families of the victims of Newtown, CT. They'll be thrilled to know that their children aren't dead.

 

It's also nice to know that muggings, home invasions, robberies, break-ins, ect. don't happen anymore.

[Coach Tuesday]

So violent attacks never happen? This is great news. I'll be sure to alert the families of the victims of Newtown, CT. They'll be thrilled to know that their children aren't dead.

 

It's also nice to know that muggings, home invasions, robberies, break-ins, ect. don't happen anymore.

 

No they're coming for you. They're all coming. 15 rifles, a perimeter of claymores, and some RPGs ought to hold them at bay.

Edited December 18, 2012 by Coach Tuesday

[TakeYouToTasker]

 

 

No they're coming for you. They're all coming. 15 rifles, a perimeter of claymores, and some RPGs ought to hold them at bay.

I see. So now that your poor argument has been exposed, all you're left with are logical fallacies?

[truth on hold]

 

Riiight...

 

Because all people are exactly the same in terms of mental health and stability. Every child suffers from severe psychological breaks, disassociative behaviors, anti-social prediliction, and schizophrenia.

 

You're a clever sonofabitch' aren't cha'?

Your post is entirely irrelevant. He may have had mild autism, even that's not clear. But it doesn't matter since there's no connection between autism and violence.

[Bronc24]

 

 

 

Home. But also in case the stojan hits the fan and gotta pick up and run.

 

 

If I buy, I'll probably buy different types. Like a handgun and AR. Hadn't thought of a shotgun because I'm not hunter, might be worth looking into.

 

Why not get one of those 100 round beauties? Why shoot an intruder twice when you can pop 40 rounds into him?

[/dev/null]

Why not get one of those 100 round beauties? Why shoot an intruder twice when you can pop 40 rounds into him?

 

100 rounds plus magazine would be too heavy

[GG]

So violent attacks never happen? This is great news. I'll be sure to alert the families of the victims of Newtown, CT. They'll be thrilled to know that their children aren't dead.

 

It's also nice to know that muggings, home invasions, robberies, break-ins, ect. don't happen anymore.

 

Cheshire CT is only 50 miles away, and it would be interesting to see if Lanza got her first gun after the Petit rape / murders.

[Coach Tuesday]

 

 

Cheshire CT is only 50 miles away, and it would be interesting to see if Lanza got her first gun after the Petit rape / murders.

 

I was wondering the same thing. Although it's far from clear that a gun would've prevented that horrific incident.

[GG]

 

 

I was wondering the same thing. Although it's far from clear that a gun would've prevented that horrific incident.

 

It may have if only from the perp knowledge that the family was armed.

[KD in CA]

C'mon - This isn't one rogue journalist in Ireland perverting the facts. Guns were far more than a "hobby" for this woman - may she rest in peace.

I'm curious how you are drawing that conclusion.

 

 

Cheshire CT is only 50 miles away, and it would be interesting to see if Lanza got her first gun after the Petit rape / murders.

I remember a security system guy telling me that sales of home security systems and guns went through the roof in CT after the Petit crime. I wouldn't be surprised.

[B-Man]

 

Gun sales surge after Connecticut massacre

 

The prospect of a renewed assault weapons ban in the wake of the Connecticut school massacre has set of a round of buying, as thousands of Americans head to their local gun store to secure the popular AR-15 -- the model used by the school gunman -- before potential government prohibitions on their purchase.

They are also buying the .223 ammunition used by the AR-15 and the type of high-capacity magazines covered under the last federal assault weapons ban, which Congress let expire without renewing.

• The Colorado Bureau of Investigation says it set a new record for single-day background check submittals this past weekend.
  
• In San Diego, Northwest Armory gun store owner Karl Durkheimer said Saturday "was the biggest day we've seen in 20 years. Sunday will probably eclipse that."
  
• In southwest Ohio, from dawn to dusk a Cincinnati gun show had a line of 400 waiting to get in, said Joe Eaton of the Buckeye Firearms Association.
  

 

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/12/18/gun-sales-surge-after-connecticut-massacre/#ixzz2FPvUYWy7

[Juror#8]

I'm not one of th idiots who thinks that people could have exacted the same level of destruction with baseball bats, ropes, or paper clips.

 

But I do think that if there were more responsible gun owning individuals in that situation, it would have assuaged much of his impact.

 

The problem is not less guns, it's giving more guns, training, and responsibility to those in a position to neutralize threats. We as a nation shouldn't fear guns - you fight fire with fire. There are crazy people in this world who feed off of unpreparedness and vulnerability. Why not default to having a safeguard in place in our most vulnerable areas and institutions.

 

We have gun carrying safeguards in courthouses.

 

There are armed safeguards on most college campuses throughout the nation.

 

Why not have an armed security personnel to protect our most vulnerable members of society in a place where they are the most vulnerable?

 

There should be a trained administrator in every school licensed to carry a firearm.

 

We can turn on some John Lennon and wax poetic about a world without guns. But there are more guns than people in this world. And if you hate guns because they're offensive and dangerous in the wrong hands, but it's unrealisitc to round up billions of them, how can we now effectively protect ourselves against the irresponsible and the injudicious without them?

[meazza]

I'm not one of th idiots who thinks that people could have exacted the same level of destruction with baseball bats, ropes, or paper clips.

 

But I do think that if there were more responsible gun owning individuals in that situation, it would have assuaged much of his impact.

 

The problem is not less guns, it's giving more guns, training, and responsibility to those in a position to neutralize threats. We as a nation shouldn't fear guns - you fight fire with fire. There are crazy people in this world who feed off of unpreparedness and vulnerability. Why not default to having a safeguard in place in our most vulnerable areas and institutions.

 

We have gun carrying safeguards in courthouses.

 

There are armed safeguards on most college campuses throughout the nation.

 

Why not have an armed security personnel to protect our most vulnerable members of society in a place where they are the most vulnerable?

 

There should be a trained administrator in every school licensed to carry a firearm.

 

We can turn on some John Lennon and wax poetic about a world without guns. But there are more guns than people in this world. And if you hate guns because they're offensive and dangerous in the wrong hands, but it's unrealisitc to round up billions of them, how can we now effectively protect ourselves against the irresponsible and the injudicious without them?

 

I think it has to do more with the type of weapons available than just simple gun ownership.

[TakeYouToTasker]

I just wanted to add the home owner/home-defense argument for hollow-tip rounds.

 

Hollow-tip rounds are far less likely to penetrate all the way through a wall, and therefore are ideal for a home owner seeking to both protect his family from an intruder, and to limit any collateral damage that might be caused by a stray bullet.

Edited December 18, 2012 by TakeYouToTasker

[/dev/null]

Why not have an armed security personnel to protect our most vulnerable members of society in a place where they are the most vulnerable?

 

There should be a trained administrator in every school licensed to carry a firearm.

I'm not a fan of the armed security in schools or other public places. Stinks of a police state. However I do support training school personnel how to defend themselves and provide an arms locker in the event of an emergency.

 

We can turn on some John Lennon and wax poetic about a world without guns. But there are more guns than people in this world. And if you hate guns because they're offensive and dangerous in the wrong hands, but it's unrealisitc to round up billions of them, how can we now effectively protect ourselves against the irresponsible and the injudicious without them?

But the government can keep their guns because they're the only ones trustworthy enough to wield them

[Juror#8]

I think it has to do more with the type of weapons available than just simple gun ownership.

 

Please believe that there are a few that advocate the eradication of firearms or that all firearms have to be maintained at a government approved location for sporting purposes.

 

I'm of the belief that there shouldn't be much restriction on the type of firearms that a citizen can purchase. Obviously some firearms have dedicated military or similiar purposes. John Q. Citizen doesn't need that.

 

I'm not a fan of the armed security in schools or other public places. Stinks of a police state. However I do support training school personnel how to defend themselves and provide an arms locker in the event of an emergency.

 

 

But the government can keep their guns because they're the only ones trustworthy enough to wield them

 

I like this idea myself. By "security," I meant a private individual whom the school hires.

Edited December 18, 2012 by Juror#8

[meazza]

Please believe that there are a few that advocate the eradication of firearms or that all firearms have to be maintained at a government approved location for sporting purposes.

 

I'm of the belief that there shouldn't be much restriction on the type of firearms that a citizen can purchase. Obviously some firearms have dedicated military or similiar purposes. John Q. Citizen doesn't need that.

 

I don't disagree with you. There is strong advocates for even stricter gun control here where I live even though it's extremely expensive and difficult to have any sort of firearm.

 

The more you give, the more they will push further to eradicate those rights.

[Joe Miner]

I'm not a fan of the armed security in schools or other public places. Stinks of a police state. However I do support training school personnel how to defend themselves and provide an arms locker in the event of an emergency.

 

 

But the government can keep their guns because they're the only ones trustworthy enough to wield them

Please believe that there are a few that advocate the eradication of firearms or that all firearms have to be maintained at a government approved location for sporting purposes.

 

I'm of the belief that there shouldn't be much restriction on the type of firearms that a citizen can purchase. Obviously some firearms have dedicated military or similiar purposes. John Q. Citizen doesn't need that.

 

 

 

I like this idea myself. By "security," I meant a private individual whom the school hires.

 

 

 

To me the question boils down to:

 

Who is responsible for my child's protection at school?

 

I don't care if the guy came in with a bat, a knife, a gun, or fists or fury, who is there to protect my child?

 

With a several minute response time, police don't cut it.

 

Either the teachers need to be trained and capable of doing the job, or there needs to be some trained security there. I tend to lean towards trained security, but that's mostly to allow the teachers to do their job, and have the security handled by people that are capable and trained. I have a hard time envisioning many of the teachers that I've had or seen in my life providing adequate protection for my child against an armed assailant. Although some basic training for teachers would be a good idea as well.

 

More secure doors and automatic locks in case of emergency would also help, along with several upgrades to the actual physical security of the building and the school grounds.

 

Does it raise costs for schools to hire security? Sure. But I'd be willing to bet that in all the bloated administration and other wasted school money that funds could be found.

 

How many of us go to work every day to a situation that is more secure than a school? Fences? Security guards? Locked and Secure Doors? Why would we send our kids somewhere that they are completely unprotected?

[TakeYouToTasker]

 

 

 

To me the question boils down to:

 

Who is responsible for my child's protection at school?

 

I don't care if the guy came in with a bat, a knife, a gun, or fists or fury, who is there to protect my child?

 

With a several minute response time, police don't cut it.

 

Either the teachers need to be trained and capable of doing the job, or there needs to be some trained security there. I tend to lean towards trained security, but that's mostly to allow the teachers to do their job, and have the security handled by people that are capable and trained. I have a hard time envisioning many of the teachers that I've had or seen in my life providing adequate protection for my child against an armed assailant. Although some basic training for teachers would be a good idea as well.

 

More secure doors and automatic locks in case of emergency would also help, along with several upgrades to the actual physical security of the building and the school grounds.

 

Does it raise costs for schools to hire security? Sure. But I'd be willing to bet that in all the bloated administration and other wasted school money that funds could be found.

 

How many of us go to work every day to a situation that is more secure than a school? Fences? Security guards? Locked and Secure Doors? Why would we send our kids somewhere that they are completely unprotected?

In my state (I believe this is an issue best decided by the states) I would be in favor of increased security (an armed officer on duty, as well as perhaps a requirement that the principal be trained and armed), but would not require that teachers be armed. That isn't their job, and I don't want them forced into that role. However, I would advocate allowing them to be armed if they wanted to be. Edited December 18, 2012 by TakeYouToTasker

[KD in CA]

I'm not a fan of the armed security in schools or other public places. Stinks of a police state.

We already have that, they are called police officers. Schools in the 'hood already have a cop on duty. It's time to make that the policy at every school.