Gun control and the second amendment....

[NYREDS]

In Utah, schools are prohibited from having any anti-gun laws and schools must allow those with legal weapons and permits to carry guns. Subsequently, there are teachers that are armed. This includes the students when they come of age to legally possess a gun and it is permissible for college students to carry in class.

In January, 2012, two Utah students devised a plan to bomb their school. Thankfully, they were caught before they could act.

I've not found any evidence of school shootings in Utah and I would think the fact that any teacher could be armed - or student at the college level - would be a deterrent. The students planning to bomb the school indicates to me that those determined to do damage will try to find a way. They knew they couldn't be successful as shooters as they would be taken out early in the game so bombing was the only way to do mass damage.

Mental health is the primary issue and those determined to kill will continue to do so until mental health is addressed.

When I was in High School it was legal for guns to be brought on school property. During deer season virtually all the boys who had card had their rifle in the car out in the school parking lot. I don't remember ever hearing of anyone bringing those guns into the school & shooting anyone. We were a different culture then.

 

[rebelcowboysnb]

My point of view is that if ANY of these shooters would have been armed with say just a bolt action rifle or a pump shotgun, there would have been way less damage done.

Really? A shotgun would be safer than a .223? Lets run with that. Lets assume at the school he chose the shotgun. And he chose the same size lead. A .223 hunk of lead is about the diameter of number 4 shot. 21 peaces of lead fit in an average 1 oz 12 gauge #4 shot shell. That means for every time he pulls the trigger he is throwing 21 time the ammo. A pump holds 8. 21 X 8 = 168. So by banning the "assault rifle" he would have had to use the pump shotgun that he did have. He was throwing 30 peaces of lead in about 15 seconds before reloading. Now he is throwing 168 peaces of lead in about those same 15 seconds before reloading.


As for the AR verses a bolt gun. You have just traded a tiny bit of speed for a tiny bit of accuracy. Bolt guns reload as fast as the AR but rate of fire is slightly slower. You have went from 4 aimed shots in 2 seconds to 3 aimed shots in 2 seconds. With a bolt gun you are talking about a plate sized group at something like 500 yards. Something an AR or AK may do at around 300 yards?

Fact is that a AR is a bad choice for inside shooting already. But it didn't really matter if he had an AR or a Luiville slugger. His target was a trapped soft target an he had 20 minutes between the first 911 call an the first cop on scene. Nothing short of a gun in a desk somewhere would have saved those in that school no matter what gun ban...


Also remember the term "going postal"? There is a reason we call it that. We did not stop those post office shootings by banning guns, we stopped them by fixing the broken system.

 

[NYREDS]

Well, I hope that's not the way it will go. It's quite simple, isn't it? Rapid firing rifles are easy to get. People are being massacred, frequently now it seems, with rapid fire rifles. There is no need for a civilian to own, possess or steal a rapid firing rifle. Therefore, it's time to curtail the sale and possession of rapid fire rifles in order to reduce the number of deaths caused with them. Let the big kids go to the amusement arcade or buy a computer game instead instead.

Hemet, you know full well that McVeigh not using a gun has nothing to do with the gun debate. The Wayne waddlers seem to be getting desperate in their arguments. Perhaps they see the writing on the wall now.

I have no idea what a "wayne waddler" is but I suspect it's meant to insult & trivialize the arguement of someone with a different point of view. Not a particularly valid debate tool.

McVeigh not using a gun has to do with the gun debate because it all too clearly illustrates the point the people who want to harm large groups of people don't need a gun to do so. The Newtown shooter could as easily have built a bomb.
Rapid fire rifles, or Assault Weapons as they are more commonly & dramatically often known are used in a very small percentage of gun deaths. FBI statistics support this fact. It's a Red Herring & a gateway leading toward the banning of private ownership of all guns. That's the stated goal of many on the political left & it has historical precident: Hitler, Stalin & Castro, amongothers disarmed their populations. Mayor Bloomberg of NYC believes private citizens shouldn't own guns, but he has armed security. Rosie O'Donnell believes private citizens shouldn't own guns but she has armed security. There are many other examples of this hypocricy.

 

[Mike Winters]

the pope as armed guards too.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_school_shootings_in_the_United_States If video games help cause school shootings is bull crap since there as been a shooting almost every year since 1950, that's before comic books, arcade, the Internet, Grand theft auto, doom and other violent video games. i still think their is something in the water or something else.

 

[BonnieDaleFarm]

My point of view is that if ANY of these shooters would have been armed with say just a bolt action rifle or a pump shotgun, there would have been way less damage done.

Really? A shotgun would be safer than a .223? Lets run with that. Lets assume at the school he chose the shotgun. And he chose the same size lead. A .223 hunk of lead is about the diameter of number 4 shot. 21 peaces of lead fit in an average 1 oz 12 gauge #4 shot shell. That means for every time he pulls the trigger he is throwing 21 time the ammo. A pump holds 8. 21 X 8 = 168. So by banning the "assault rifle" he would have had to use the pump shotgun that he did have. He was throwing 30 peaces of lead in about 15 seconds before reloading. Now he is throwing 168 peaces of lead in about those same 15 seconds before reloading.


As for the AR verses a bolt gun. You have just traded a tiny bit of speed for a tiny bit of accuracy. Bolt guns reload as fast as the AR but rate of fire is slightly slower. You have went from 4 aimed shots in 2 seconds to 3 aimed shots in 2 seconds. With a bolt gun you are talking about a plate sized group at something like 500 yards. Something an AR or AK may do at around 300 yards?

Fact is that a AR is a bad choice for inside shooting already. But it didn't really matter if he had an AR or a Luiville slugger. His target was a trapped soft target an he had 20 minutes between the first 911 call an the first cop on scene. Nothing short of a gun in a desk somewhere would have saved those in that school no matter what gun ban...


Also remember the term "going postal"? There is a reason we call it that. We did not stop those post office shootings by banning guns, we stopped them by fixing the broken system.

.
No gun is safe with the right idiot behind it. My point was less bullets less damage. Common sense.

 

[thaiturkey]

Actually it is. What is the factor in all those? People not the vehicle.

As far as complete prohibition of guns, there are some that would love to see that. More so in the state which I reside. But no matter what the situation, PEOPLE are always the unmitigated central factor. People have no self control and make choices,bad ones. They choose to drink and then drive, they choose to take drugs. You don't start out an addict. This mans mother chose not secure the weapons knowing her son had difficulty coping with life.He decided to kill all those children with those guns, if not those guns maybe some other ones.

'It's people not guns' is a weak and tired argument. To follow that too the extreme would be to suggest that getting rid of people would stop all killings of all kinds!

The point is that the rapid fire weapons being used in these massacres now kill more people more quickly than other guns. Each of those kids the other day had at least three wounds from a gun that had 100 round magazines, we are told. At least a hand gun would have given them more chance of survival. There's no legitimate reason to have those guns. Getting rid of them would undoubtedly save lives.

It's not just about mentally ill people either. That's another common fallacy. The mother of the latest killer owned those guns, and owned them legally, it seems. Why did she need a Bushmaster? How did her not quite normal son get his hands on it? Don't people keep guns in safes?

What about those who use guns to kill in anger? They might not be so quick to take action if a gun wasn't to hand.

And the careless whose children find guns and have terrible accidents?

Isn't ammunition supposed to be kept separate from guns and guns not carried loaded? That's a basic rule that I was taught but there must be many people ignoring it.

Isn't it too easy in some places to buy a gun legally or get a licence?

There may be many other reasons why crazy weapons are being used more often in massacres. Isn't it reasonable to stop and consider why rather than attempting to defend the status quo?

 

[rebelcowboysnb]

http://kfor.com/2012/12/17/should-teachers-carry-guns-in-school/

 

[BonnieDaleFarm]

Actually it is. What is the factor in all those? People not the vehicle.

As far as complete prohibition of guns, there are some that would love to see that. More so in the state which I reside. But no matter what the situation, PEOPLE are always the unmitigated central factor. People have no self control and make choices,bad ones. They choose to drink and then drive, they choose to take drugs. You don't start out an addict. This mans mother chose not secure the weapons knowing her son had difficulty coping with life.He decided to kill all those children with those guns, if not those guns maybe some other ones.

'It's people not guns' is a weak and tired argument. To follow that too the extreme would be to suggest that getting rid of people would stop all killings of all kinds!

The point is that the rapid fire weapons being used in these massacres now kill more people more quickly than other guns. Each of those kids the other day had at least three wounds from a gun that had 100 round magazines, we are told. At least a hand gun would have given them more chance of survival. There's no legitimate reason to have those guns. Getting rid of them would undoubtedly save lives.

It's not just about mentally ill people either. That's another common fallacy. The mother of the latest killer owned those guns, and owned them legally, it seems. Why did she need a Bushmaster? How did her not quite normal son get his hands on it? Don't people keep guns in safes?

What about those who use guns to kill in anger? They might not be so quick to take action if a gun wasn't to hand.

And the careless whose children find guns and have terrible accidents?

Isn't ammunition supposed to be kept separate from guns and guns not carried loaded? That's a basic rule that I was taught but there must be many people ignoring it.

Isn't it too easy in some places to buy a gun legally or get a licence?

There may be many other reasons why crazy weapons are being used more often in massacres. Isn't it reasonable to stop and consider why rather than attempting to defend the status quo?

Very well said.

 

[thaiturkey]

http://kfor.com/2012/12/17/should-teachers-carry-guns-in-school/

Surely, that's a crazy suggestion.

What parent would want his or her child to be educated in an environment in which teachers carried guns? What kind of negative lesson would that teach the children?

Who in his right mind would welcome a shootout between a teacher and a killer who prepared himself for an armed teacher?

And if the teacher shoots a child by mistake, imagine the uproar and demands for compensation and justice. Would any teacher want to be involved in such a risk?

A crazy suggestion that amounts to no more avoiding the real issues.

 

[BonnieDaleFarm]

They arm teachers my children will not be going to school and I imagine most parents would feel the same way.