Printable View
Seems like nobody read my post on the previous page. If all school kids are armed with revolvers, the school shooters will likely bring SMGs. The relative balance will remain the same, but the absolute balance will shift towards more guns. Arming teachers could be a good idea though.
Then we agree, don't be so sensitive about kids beating eachother up because someone could just bring a knife. So I say just let them fight a little that is normal.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rodion Romanovich
I did read it rodion but i agreed basically so the only comment i could have made is "I agree" so
"I agree"
the ideal situation is no weapons in schools and as the weapons get better (stick - sharp stick - knife - gun) the potential for 1 persons kills increase dramatically
Actually, it's a different kind of logical fallacy:Quote:
Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff
When you want to talk, Beirut, and not bring logical fallacies into it, I'll be ready.Quote:
Reductio ad absurdum (Latin for "reduction to the absurd") also known as an apagogical argument, reductio ad impossibile, or proof by contradiction, is a type of logical argument where one assumes a claim for the sake of argument, derives an absurd or ridiculous outcome, and then concludes that the original assumption must have been wrong as it led to an absurd result.
They miss. I doubt people are going to be congregating around the shooter.Quote:
What happens when they miss?
CR
Instead of arming every student, one could hire security guards..
Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleGrizzly
So according to this theory we get rid of all weapons in school so the kid is going to go on a killing spree with just stick?? That doesnt work. you can give every kid a muzzle loader and if that shooter comes in with a gatling gun it still only takes on bullet. It doesnt matter what type of gun they have bullets are still bullets, and if you look at 90%(not based on statistics) of american youth or youth period they probably never fired a gun in their lives. We just give them one gun one bullet and as long as their lives depend on it they will fire that shot.
I want to make clear that I do not think anyone should be compelled to carry a gun. Only that the option should be there.Quote:
Originally Posted by Viking
As for security - most campuses have their own police force. The problem is, as it has ever been, that they simply can't be everywhere at once. Even when the police - not just rent a cops - arrive fast, they're too late.
CR
No strawman here, just a cowardly lion. :sunny:Quote:
Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff
If the age of consent is 18, and if an 18 year-old can carry a handgun at college, why can't an 18 year-old carry a handgun at high school?
If an 18 year-old can carry a handgun into high school, why can't younger students carry knives, and why is a student who is old enough to drive and join the army not allowed to carry a gun into high school?
What are the caliber, ammunition, and magazine capacity limitations on guns in school? Can a a student of legal age, be it high school or college, carry a Thompson-Center .308 Winchester single shot pistol with FMJ ammunition? Can the student carry any of a myriad of handguns that hold up to and more than 15 shots? May he carry extra magazines? And how many? And if not, why not? May he carry a cocked and locked single action semi-auto? If not, why not? Are snatch resistent holsters required? If not, why not? May he carry one one of the semi-auto variations of an Uzi or MAC-10 if in that state they are designated as handguns? If not, why not?
I've owned dozens of rifles, handguns and shotguns. I've shot every kind of gun there is. I earned my badges in competition shooting, and I've got twenty-years of Guns & Ammo, Shooting Times, and The American Handgunner rolling around in my rusty memory banks, so I'll be looking for realistic answers to these questions.
Thanks.
Beirut- in nearly all states with licensed concealed weapon carrying, the minimum age is 21 years.
Also, a question - would you be against allowing teachers with concealed weapons permits to carry in high schools?
CR
I forgot.
May students with legal carry permits form collectives, meaning they are indentified, by a particular shirt or crest, while at school? If not, why not?
Nearly. But I speak of the others that allow 18.Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit
All my questions still stand.
No, teachers should not carry handguns.
Carrying in high schools:
No. I suppose you could call getting a HS degree a rite of passage. So no, HS students can't carry.
Pocketknives; yes. I think all students should be able to carry pocketknives.
So, may groups of students who carry wear a certain t-shirt? I don't see why not. You'll find though, among people who carry concealed, there is a desire not to advertise that fact.Quote:
Originally Posted by Beirut
Do you mean that as part of a 'nobody should carry handguns' stance or teachers especially? If the former, I'd ask why teaching means you must give up your right to self defense at the location of high profile attacks, or why being around children means you can't be allowed to effectively defend yourself.Quote:
No, teachers should not carry handguns.
I also see no reason for regulations on what pistol one can carry, nor on how many magazines. Semi-auto uzis is stretching it, as they would be hard to conceal. And I know of no state that definse them as handguns. If you do, please share. If one could, I don't see why not - considering they fire pistol ammunition anyways, and wouldn't fire it much faster if they were small enough to conceal.
CR
But if a high school sudent is of legal age, why should an education in matters completely unrelated to weapons training be pertinent to carrying a weapon?Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit
What about an 18 year-old with training who failed twice and is in the 10th grade? Why can't he carry a gun?
Where in the 2nd Amendment is the provision for a required minimum education? Do the states ask for one?
What about inner-city schools where minorities make up the majority of students. These people and schools are often subject to high crime levels. Shouldn't every 18 year-old student of an inner-city high school be allowed to carry a handgun? As minorities in these situations sometimes suffer a disproportionate amount of crime, shouldn't provisions be made to make it even easier for inner-city school with a high perccetage of minorities to allow for the carrying of handguns at school?
Can we agree this means a 7th grade student may carry a folding knife with a 3" or 4" blade? And if a 4" folder is allowed, what about a 4" fixed blade siince there is no real difference? What about a Ka-Bar? What if the stats showed that less people were stabbed with large fixed blade knives than with smaller ones, would you say then that large fixed blade knives should be allowed in high school?Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit
Many young people like to be indentified with a group. So you could have the Bumfart College 357s, and all the members could wear the team t-shirt and carry .357 Magnums. Perhaps you could have the Bumfart College .44s, and so on. Basically, you could have armed gangs now walking around school wearing their colours. What happens at school sporting events? Can the Bumfart College .44s sit next to the Brainburp College 9mms at the playoffs?Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit
I don't know about you, but I would be extremelly nervous to be in the stands that day.
I would answer the same here as I did in a previous post, that a learning environment and the carrying of weapons simply do not go together unless one is attending a military or police college.Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit
If a teacher is in fear of his/her life, the school has a responsibility to provide adequate protection.
So a student could carry a .308 caliber Thompson-Center handgun with FMJ ammunition, keeping in mind that this bullet could tear through almost a foot of solid wood and penetratre into adjoining rooms, even after it has passed through a person's body? And if you forbid the .308, what about the .223 Remington (the bullet fired by M-16s)? That bullet can also be fired in a handgun. And if you forbid the .223, what about "dedicated" handgun ammunition that has greater impact energy than the .223 and still overpenetrates, why would you allow that ammunition?Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit
This would mean that any FMJ round is allowed even though over penetratration is a serious issue. And since we are talking about young people with high capacity semi-autos, the threat of rapid unaimed fire (spray & pray) is also a serious issue. Without any limits on magazine size or even the number of magazines, it is (very) possible that should students start firing, there could well be a veritable fusilade of undisciplined and over penetrating fire in a crowded environment.
The Mini-Uzi and Micro-Uzi are very small and easy to conceal. This is a bit of an emotional point on my part, but I was curious if you or anyone else had a conceptual problem with young people carrying Uzis at school.Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit
For my part, it is night and day without a hint of doubt; carrying handguns at school is insanity.
I can only speak with any degree of certainty about my own state, but I believe most that issue carry permits require you be 21 years of age. That rules out virtually all HS students, and having been 18, I think it's probably for the best. :yes:Quote:
Originally Posted by Beirut
Agreed. A penknife is a tool, not a weapon. I could do just as much damage with a pair of scissors as I could with a penknife.Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit
But you wouldn't let any cops be around the school, since their being armed doesn't go with that environment?Quote:
I would answer the same here as I did in a previous post, that a learning environment and the carrying of weapons simply do not go together unless one is attending a military or police college.
If a teacher is in fear of his/her life, the school has a responsibility to provide adequate protection.
I really don't see how you can logically state a university is incompatible with self defense.
Show me one person who uses either a .308 or .223 pistol for everyday carry. Until then, this is irrelevant.Quote:
So a student could carry a .308 caliber Thompson-Center handgun with FMJ ammunition, keeping in mind that this bullet could tear through almost a foot of solid wood and penetratre into adjoining rooms, even after it has passed through a person's body? And if you forbid the .308, what about the .223 Remington (the bullet fired by M-16s)? That bullet can also be fired in a handgun. And if you forbid the .223, what about "dedicated" handgun ammunition that has greater impact energy than the .223 and still overpenetrates, why would you allow that ammunition?
Like I said before, I doubt the area around the shooter, or behind them (since the new MO seems to be walking into a classroom from the hallway and opening fire on the seated students), would be crowded, and that such a scenario you predict would be likely.Quote:
This would mean that any FMJ round is allowed even though over penetratration is a serious issue. And since we are talking about young people with high capacity semi-autos, the threat of rapid unaimed fire (spray & pray) is also a serious issue. Without any limits on magazine size or even the number of magazines, it is (very) possible that should students start firing, there could well be a veritable fusilade of undisciplined and over penetrating fire in a crowded environment.
I'm not going to debate such nonsense, just like I won't argue whether the fashions on alpha-centuri are objectifying females.Quote:
I don't know about you, but I would be extremelly nervous to be in the stands that day.
Fine, but don't try to force your illogical obstinance on the rest of us.Quote:
For my part, it is night and day without a hint of doubt; carrying handguns at school is insanity.
CR
If I made a statement like that you'd head butt me into next week.Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit
It's not that a university is incompatible with self-defense, have all the karate classes you want, but having the students carrying handguns is an unacceptable extreme.Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit
It is not an elephant. First off, since it's concealed carry, neither of us can know if either a .223 or .308 is being carried. That is the point. From a technical perspective, weapons can be, and will be, carried that are unsuitable to the environment and perceived tactical situation and no one will know until it is far too late.Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit
I await your views on the finer technical points of carrying and discharging a weapon in a crowded environment. Since you eschew the emotional for the rational, I'm sure your postings on the matter will carry great relevance.
In a crowded university, people are everywhere. You can't say that as soon as gunfire erupts there won't be anyone around because if that were true no one would be killed during a school shooting.Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit
I won't pick and choose. You give me a point and I will consider it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit
My point is that having armed students can lead to groups of armed students organizing, and that can have terrible reprecussions. Universities are hotbeds of political and social activism, it is unrealistic to think that the pervasive carrying of weapons by young emotional people will not eventually interact with those other activities.
If you think that is not an issue, that is your choice.
I can't see that I'm forcing my illogical obstinance on anyone any more than you are. We are partners in this here particular crime. ~:yin-yang:Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit
if you think this has to do with guns you are wrong. We live in the USA we shouldnt have to get to the point were our educaters are armed to protect themsleves from there studnets. We have to figure out the why. Anything else is knee jerk reactionary measure that will backfire
Agreed. Guns are neither the root of the problem nor are they the answer. They are, however, part of the problem.Quote:
Originally Posted by Strike For The South
A (huge) problem I see with having guns in school (besides all the other problems) is that some of the people who view carrying guns in school as the answer are either disregarding the technical aspects of the situation because they are unable to discuss them adequately, or are unwilling to do so because they feel discussing technicalities will lead to limitations on types of weapons and that would be an affront to their personal liberties.
The reality is that Beirut and people in his camp want guns to be limited to the point of obsolescence because they maintain that crazy people can get their hands on them more easily. They support laws that ban guns wherever they can find them in an effort to make guns obsolete, hence their support of university bans. Makes sense.
Crazed Rabbit and those in his camp believe that they should have the right to protect their families and themselves at all times without relying on the government, - who time and time again arrives on time to send the bodies to the morgue and protect the next family. Because of an increase in college shootings they have a choice - they can either ban guns further or support conceal carry on campuses - where their lives are statistically more endangered.
I think that school shooting fatalities will be reduced with either measure, but I support conceal carry laws because it solidifies the right to self/family defence as enumerated in the 2nd amendment.
Wow. Im willing to bet you've never shot a living thing in your life much less a person. A gun is the great equalizer but you hafto understand the gravity of the power that you have in your hands. You can take lives. You are so so wrong. Im not worried about the guns. The guns dont do anything Im worried about the people and the people im most worried about are people like you who think more guns in school is a good thing. You have this romantic notion of civic minded students rising as one subduing the evildoer. That isnt how its going to happen people are going to get scared and when people get scared people make rash decisons like discharge firearms in a crowded area and kill innocents.Quote:
Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff
Interesting. Almost completely wrong, but interesting.Quote:
Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff
Aside from all the other guns that I've owned (several dozen), I've had the same Browning BL-22 my father gave to me at Christmas when I was fourteen. So if you can find anyone else on this board who has owned the same rifle for thirty years, I'd be delighted to hear you tell them they are anti-gun as well. ~:smoking:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beirut
I've read that you have guns. They are already banned on university in almost evey case. Arn't you the one who is always using school shootings to make 2nd amendment defenders look like nazis? Or is that Goofball and Tribesman? What kind of plan are you suggesting that we adopt on a national level in terms of gun regulation?
It sounds like you are a fan of guns.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Strike For The South
I've never seen it. It's worth a try on a few select campuses. We'll see if it turns into a blood bath.
BTW I haven't shot a person as far as I know.
Its reactionary measure that will cuase more harm than good.Quote:
Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff
I'm for it. It makes sense. If people have a right to carry guns, why should they forfeit that right when they need it most? School by school basis is the best way to implement it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Strike For The South
Good. Remove the word "almost" and it will be better.Quote:
Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff
Not at all, I'm a great fan of the American Constitution. A wonderful and remarkable document. But is is neither infalible nor always explicit. If it was, you would not require a Supreme Court to interpret it's meanings from time to time. Nor would it have required amendments in the past, or the future as some wish to impart upon it.Quote:
Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff
A realistic one that incorporates both the rights of gun owners with the reality of the inherent danger guns present.Quote:
Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff
But we should perhaps keep this on topic.
Shooting is a great sport. Lots of fun. And there are legitimate self-defense issues that can't be ignored. But carrying handguns in school is, to us lefty Canadians anyway, absolutely sickening.Quote:
Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff
Aside from the grievous technical concerns of having young inexperienced and untrained people carrying guns unsuitable to the tactical situation in a crowded environment (which no one seems able or willing to confront), there are legitimate social concerns as well.
Hey, I'm a fan of car racing as well, but I still insist that traffic slow to a crawl in a school zone.
My dear Beirut, one is sounding more and more like James Madison these days, and that is meant as a serious compliment.Quote:
Originally Posted by Beirut
Command of language, clarity of thought, good show! :toff:
Those who want to keep their guns because they think they need them or because they like them should state their own reasons, not invoke the Second Amendment. Given the circumstances of the young republic, Madison had military reasons to introduce the Second:
Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger. The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence. (Federalist 46)His vision proved to be invaluable in the first decades. Instead of extrapolating on this, I will let The Battle of New Orleans do the talking:
then we opened up with squirrel guns and really gave 'em well
My dearest AdrianII,
Any kind word from you I accept with gracious thanks. :sunny:
Especially when it overlooks the reckless spelling mistakes I seem to commit with such abandon.
Mythical accounts are not a good example Adrian .Quote:
Instead of extrapolating on this, I will let The Battle of New Orleans do the talking:
The only reason for the British defeat was British incompetance .