Connecticut shooting ***Do NOT post about gun laws***

[CanadianCowboysFan]

Originally Posted by JBond

“We must reject the idea that every time a law's broken, society is guilty rather than the lawbreaker. It is time to restore the American precept that each individual is accountable for his actions.”

- Reagan

They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.

- Franklin
Harden the schools as discussed and allow qualified citizens to protect themselves and others from nut jobs.

yet many willingly allow themselves to be strip searched, body scanned, forced to take shoes off etc because of a few rare airline terrorist events, but are up in arms literally when someone just brings up the subject of limiting guns, why is there a difference in attitudes when both include giving up liberty of some kind.

[Dallas]

Originally Posted by Faerluna

There was a 20/20 piece by Diane Sawyer that aired in 2009. The topic was what happens when you put people of various experience levels with guns (concealed carry) in a mass shooting situation and how they react.

If anyone is interested in viewing these videos (2 videos, about 14m total length) please PM me.

This is nothing personal towards you, but Diane Sawyer? You honestly think for a second a gun owner / conceal carry owner is going to get anything positive from her and her skewed sense of society? Especially where rights are concerned? ABC?


You have to know what you are working with and neither she nor ABC seem to be a solid resource for fair assessment of both sides.

Well its Diane Sawyer, it must be true. Not always.

IMHO

[Faerluna]

Originally Posted by Dallas

This is nothing personal towards you, but Diane Sawyer? You honestly think for a second a gun owner / conceal carry owner is going to get anything positive from her and her skewed sense of society? Especially where rights are concerned? ABC?


You have to know what you are working with and neither she nor ABC seem to be a solid resource for fair assessment of both sides.

Well its Diane Sawyer, it must be true. Not always.

IMHO

It's just a news magazine piece with not much commentary from her. It was an experiment conducted by firearms experts in a classroom type setting.

If you don't want to watch it, that's fine. I'm just offering it this way as it was deemed too political in this thread that is ankle deep in politics already.

Didn't realize that Diane Sawyer was to controversial.

[Dallas]

Originally Posted by Faerluna

It's just a news magazine piece with not much commentary from her. It was an experiment conducted by firearms experts in a classroom type setting.

If you don't want to watch it, that's fine. I'm just offering it this way as it was deemed too political in this thread that is ankle deep in politics already.

Didn't realize that Diane Sawyer was to controversial.

I didn't say she was to controversial. I am just trying to attempt to address that I personally feel she isn't going to give a gun owner nor a conceal carry owner a fair chance in any of her coverage.




BTW: Merry Christmas grllll

[Vtwin]

Originally Posted by Sam I Am

Notice how they all happen at places they attend or have attended? The place wasn't picked, that was already decided. The only people who "choose" places are terrorists and they don't seem to care about the place having guns or not either. All that matters is the damage done.

Doesn't change the fact that the vast majority happen in gun free zones. Could be an amazing coincidence I suppose.

[Vtwin]

Originally Posted by Dallas

This is nothing personal towards you, but Diane Sawyer? You honestly think for a second a gun owner / conceal carry owner is going to get anything positive from her and her skewed sense of society? Especially where rights are concerned? ABC?


You have to know what you are working with and neither she nor ABC seem to be a solid resource for fair assessment of both sides.

Well its Diane Sawyer, it must be true. Not always.

IMHO

My first thought also. It is amazing to me how many people still take what mainstream media reports as indisputable fact.

Not referring to you Faerluna. I would like to see the videos.

[WV Cowboy]

I understand the hesitancy to have security at schools, .. but we have security at many buildings, ... federal courts/post office, county court houses, the FBI fingerprinting department is here where I live and the security is top of the line.

Many places have armed security. We protect many buildings and people.

Why would we not protect our children?

[Dallas]

Originally Posted by WV Cowboy

I understand the hesitancy to have security at schools, .. but we have security at many buildings, ... federal courts/post office, county court houses, the FBI fingerprinting department is here where I live and the security is top of the line.

Many places have armed security. We protect many buildings and people.

Why would we not protect our children?

I agree. We have police in our schools here in Anchorage. At least 2 officers are in each HS in town.

[DIAF]

Because having a gun or two or three on campus full of a couple hundered kids is a much greater risk of a kid getting his hands on them somehow than the risk of a mass shooter. In order to kill kids at school with guns, you have to have A) guns at school B) Kids at school. You put armed security/teachers/faculty in that school, and you've already got half the equation.

Yes, we have armed guards at federal and local courts, etc. But generally adults are far more reasonable and predictable than kids are.

[Rack Bauer]

Originally Posted by CanadianCowboysFan

yet many willingly allow themselves to be strip searched, body scanned, forced to take shoes off etc because of a few rare airline terrorist events, but are up in arms literally when someone just brings up the subject of limiting guns, why is there a difference in attitudes when both include giving up liberty of some kind.

Completely different issues. Strip searches, taking off shoes (), body scans, etc... are ways to protect people in a public environment (eg. Airplane, sporting events, etc...). Whereas taking away our guns takes away our right to defend ourselves, our homes, family, etc...

NOT the same thing.

Originally Posted by DIAF

Because having a gun or two or three on campus full of a couple hundered kids is a much greater risk of a kid getting his hands on them somehow than the risk of a mass shooter. In order to kill kids at school with guns, you have to have A) guns at school B) Kids at school. You put armed security/teachers/faculty in that school, and you've already got half the equation.

Yes, we have armed guards at federal and local courts, etc. But generally adults are far more reasonable and predictable than kids are.

Ummmm no. If a Kid wanted to have a gun at school, taking one from a trained police officer wouldn't be the route they'd go. They'd take their parent's guns instead.

You're reaching here. Big time.


Guns aren't the problem here, people are. Take away their guns (you still won't be able to do that anyway) and the people are still the problem.

[jobberone]

We believe this topic has run its course and has been thoroughly discussed by everyone so we are closing it.