Shooting at Connecticut Elementary School

I agree a line needs to be drawn somewhere as to what types of weapons are available. I just don't think that solves the problem.

You want to limit clip size, they'll just buy more clips. You want to eliminate high powered rifles all together (even if you could), they'll just use another type of gun.

What we need are more good guys with guns and less crazy guys with guns.

 

This would be a city task, not a state or federal. maybe a county task with the Sheriff at most.

it doesn't even have to be separated, it is just built in to the local police budget.

average starting salary for a Police Officer in the US is $51k. this doesn't have to be a position separate from the existing police force, so we are talking about maybe just one extra person on the force per year per school per city.

 

I don't agree with that logic , you limit the amount of alcohol that people can drink and while it doesn't solve the issue of drinking and driving it certainly limits the amount of idiots that get behind the wheel after having too much to drink. It is never going to be a perfect solution but that doesn't mean we don't try.

As far as more good guys with guns.. I like to call them police officers. I prefer more people trained to handle these situations and not some yahoo who just bought his 9 at the gun show last weekend.

 

I don't want to be paying cops to act as fucking hall monitors. We already have four times more government employees to support than we need and are actually deriving any useful benefit from. In NH cops get to stand in the street working road details, while some other schmuck actually does the real work involved. This is the same thing. From an actuarial perspective this is just an incredibly poor investment of resources.

The other thing I really don't want to experience is a crazed shooter in a crowded public place taking shots from at least one or maybe more poorly trained, marginally skilled and ideologcially twisted gun owners. Go shoot varmints in your back yard if you have the need.

 

no, it is the correct strategy and the type of investment citizens should be willing to contribute to.

public schools are government institutions. police officers are government employees. it is the government's job to police its own facilities. attempting to correlate a cop protecting students from threats (both actively when the threat is present as well as by continuously keeping alert to anything out of the ordinary) to being a hall monitor is ridiculous, and your interest in believing it is the NRA's responsibility to keep us safe from gun violence has zero basis in reason.

guns are a constitutional right, not just an NRA agenda. the NRA simply has the ridiculous position that all guns should be legal. but even if the government outlawed all guns except the most basic type of pistols, the schools would still need protection from those pistols, so the NRA isn't responsible at all. as long as any gun is legal by government creed from the 2nd Amendment, it is the government's responsibility to protect government schools and students.

private schools, like any private business, can hire their own security. but having cops at public schools does not then project to the government paying for cops to perform security details at any private property.

just because cops in NH are misused in traffic duties does not equate to Cops protecting schools is a misuse.

 

Perfectly sane people get pissed off and have no business being anywhere near deadly force every day. Kids are shot every day, many are killed every day and few of them by crazy people.

All of us the sane and the insane have hormones running through our body and chemicals running through our little pee brains that impact mood, anger, happiness. Having guns is opportunity, having semi-automatic and automatic weapons is insane opportunity. The argument that millions of gun owners are responsible is outright BS. Gun owners are like everyone else because they are everyone else. Sometimes they are responsible and sometimes they are incredibly irresponsible. The difference between the gun owners and none gun owner is opportunity during those times of irresponsible behavior.

The big lie by those pushing an agenda for more weapons and deadlier weapons is the responsible gun owner. It’s nonsense.

 

This is a stupid argument. Guns are made for the sole purpose of killing. Just because other things CAN be used to kill doesn't make that their purpose.

 

Read through this thread before you start talking about how "well-trained" and proficient police officers are with firearms.

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/archive/index.php/t-145502.html

I'd actually guess that the average CCW permit holder is more competent with handguns than the average law-enforcement officer is. Most CCW permit holders have a thorough respect for the responsibilities that come along with carrying a gun, and they generally view guns as a passion and a hobby. Most police officers view carrying a gun as simply being part of the job, and don't care at all about practicing.

Furthermore, here is a (admittedly incomplete, and somewhat unscientific) study which supports the idea that civilians are able to respond much quicker and more effectively during potential mass shootings, preventing many deaths.

 

I think it's nuts to have a system that relies on rational thought from crazy people.

The NRA contribution yesterday sounded like some kind of spoof or parody to people here. Hard to fathom that people think that way.

 

:rofl2:

For a bright guy that's a really dumb argument.

Of course Guns are made for killing. Regulating them does not regulate INTENT..

:rofl:

The simple fact of the matter is, Guns are only scary to small minded people who would prefer that the power of the whole be subjected to the rule of the few....murder in and of itself,knows no rules or tools...lHappy Land Social Club, was done with gasoline...should we regulate that too?


Leftists like you, should line up behind the others that insisted gun regulation, is the answer....lCasro,Stalin,and Hitler.


You cannot regulate intent. Don't be a tool, focus on the problem, not the tool.

 

The problem is not stinger missile launchers; it's people who want to use stinger missile launchers to bring down planes.

Why can't I have a stinger missile launcher? I just want it for sport.

 

There are solutions for this problem though. All we have to do is station a million or so peace officers around the country with anti-stinger technology to shoot down the stingers on the way to the planes. We should also be looking into locking up everybody who is crazy enough to shoot a stinger at a plane full of people. It's not the technology that is at fault it's the people who use it.

And don't start talking nonsense about the gunmen, er I mean stinger launchers, who will stake out a spot to see what the guards are doing and then make sure they're the first to go down in the rampage, er I mean shoot down. People who are doing things like this are completely irrational and they'd never work to defeat a single point of defense to let them do their insane act.

 

Before putting deadly weapons with mass killing power in the hands of people it's not unreasonable to figure out their intent. When I go to home depot to buy a hammer chances are pretty good my intent is to bang in a nail. When I go to Wallmart to buy several semi-automatic guns and amo designed to do serious damage to large groups of people you have to wonder what is the intent?

You seem to be arguing that the 2nd amendment prevents society from regulate or finding out what that intent is. I assume when someone seeks an aresnal they are either scared out of their minds or worse seeking to kill.

I would assume that if your neighbor who was an executive at wallmart was buying explosives and storing them in his basement you would want to know what the intent was. Explosives are simply a tool.

People buy tools to use them. Guns have no liability, people can carry them into bars and other public places concealed or openly, there is no real background check since the data base for felons and the mentally ill isn't maintained for the 60% of guns that are bought that require it. The other 40% of legal purchases there is no background check at all.

I did find the NRA solution of turning our school yards into armed camps with another layer of storm troopers we need to protect ourselves from pretty funny.

 

Its a misuse when 99.8% of the time they will be doing nothing. This solution is like the law enforcement full employment act.

 

so how do you blokes across the pond prevent psychotic rampagers with high powered rifles from shooting up class rooms?

 

Why do you have to use insults and labels in every argument you make? That makes you small minded. The majority of Americans support gun control of some kind. It is not just liberals. Please stop with the insults and labels when it is time this country has a serious discussion of the issues that make us the most violent civilized country on the planet and as we seek to implement measures to reduce the ridiculous number of gun-related deaths.

And it is the opposite of small minded to draw a distinction between cars and guns as tools of murder.

When you and others who oppose gun safety laws can tell me how you can determine with any degree of reliability when a person will develop a propensity for committing a crime like Newtown or Aurora, then we can consider that as a solution.

But we can all say right now that there is no reason for a citizen to own military style weapons and large clips. And the government overthrow argument may have had relevance in 1789, but in 2012 America it is absurd.

If not, why not let me own my own tank? And I'd place an order for a few stingers myself. I don't want the government sending a drone after me and I don't know if my AK 47 will be able to fend off some upcoming tyrannical overthrow of the USA with the use of a military that has weapons that make guns useless.

Please stop.

 

What is your suggestion for an adequate magazine limit that doesn't infringe on peoples' right to defend themselves? Based on statistics compiled from the NYPD in 1996, 2001, and 2000 (source http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2008/05/08/nyregion/08nypdgraphic.ready.html) , police officers only hit their target about 32.2% of the time. This means that if you want to be prepared to hit one attacker with one bullet, you must be carrying at least 4 rounds. A ten year study on shootings produced the following results on how effective one bullet is at stopping someone:

Basically, it's hardly a sure thing at all. This means that, to consider yourself adequately prepared to stop one attacker, you must be prepared to hit them at least two times, which means carrying at least 7 or 8 rounds. If you consider multiple attackers, then that number gets multiplied by whatever you deem to be a realistic possible number of attackers... and it would be nice to have one or two extra, you know, just in case.

Telling people that they have the right to defend themselves using firearms, then restricting them to anything less than 10 rounds would be blatantly dishonest in my opinion. Furthermore, limiting magazine capacities creates a problem (people who carry for self-defense might run out of ammo in critical situations) without really solving one (people who are planning mass killings will just bring more magazines with them). Is that really the right way to tackle this problem?

 

You put far more thought into that post than he did his. I would suggest ignoring him in the future because going down that road is just a waste of time.

He knows that there is already a line drawn of what is and is not allowed under the 2nd amendment and it is up to us how important that right is with respect to our other rights. But he is willfully ignoring it because he has been told what to believe by bumper stickers.

 

my brother and his wife are coips, they also think the limitation would be useless because a shooter would just carry more clips and quickly reload. But will say,as a defense weapon on your home,if you need a high capacity weapon,then yoiu should not be using a gun in the 1st place