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

[YosemiteSam]

Gun free zones are not the answer. They are an invitation for lunatics. That has been proven over and over.

This is not true. Crazy people don't think "umm, where could I go where I know they don't have firearms?". No, they just go where the people are that they want to shoot and start shooting.

 

[joseephuss]

I do not think we are that far apart on this issue. There is a middle ground that can be reached without destroying the Second Amendment and keeps our kids relatively safe.

Very few people are claiming otherwise.

 

[JBond]

Very few people are claiming otherwise.

Unfortunately the few that are have a great deal of power. I guess we will know by January.

 

[Vtwin]

This is not true. Crazy people don't think "umm, where could I go where I know they don't have firearms?". No, they just go where the people are that they want to shoot and start shooting.

Really?

You know this how?

Just coincidence that the majority of these massacres take place in gun free zones?

Got anything to cite to lend credibilty to this claim?

 

[tupperware]

Crazy doesn't always mean stupid. Some crazies are calculated.

 

[YosemiteSam]

Really?

You know this how?

Just coincidence that the majority of these massacres take place in gun free zones?

Got anything to cite to lend credibilty to this claim?

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.

 

[joseephuss]

Unfortunately the few that are have a great deal of power. I guess we will know by January.

That isn't true.

 

[SilverStarCowboy]

The latest from the police...

----------------------------------------

Lanza is believed to have suffered from a personality disorder and lived with his mother, said a law enforcement official who was briefed on the investigation.

Lanza shot his mother, Nancy Lanza, drove to the school in her car with at least three of her guns, and opened fire in two classrooms around 9:30 a.m. Friday, law enforcement officials said, speaking on condition of anonymity.

The gunman forced his way into the kindergarten-through-fourth-grade school, authorities said. He took three guns into the school — a Glock and a Sig Sauer, both semiautomatic pistols, and a .223-caliber Bushmaster rifle, according to an official who was not authorized to discuss information with reporters and spoke on the condition of anonymity. The weapons were registered to his slain mother.

A custodian ran through the halls, warning of a gunman, and someone switched on the intercom, perhaps saving many lives by letting them hear the chaos in the school office, a teacher said. Teachers locked their doors and ordered children to huddle in a corner, duck under their desks or hide in closets as shots reverberated through the building.

A law enforcement official speaking on condition of anonymity said investigators believe Lanza attended the school several years ago but appeared to have no recent connection to it. It was not clear whether he held a job.

At least one parent said Lanza's mother was a substitute teacher at the school. But her name did not appear on a staff list. And the official said investigators were unable to establish any connection so far between her and the school.

More: http://news.yahoo.com/conn-police-very-good-evidence-gunman-155817889.html

He had http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asperger_syndrome ....same as my nephew and Bill gates. They are saying personality disorder because usually the people effected are not dangerous. They are rather different and many times even gifted in certain aspects, usually aspergers are not any harm to anyone else.

It's just that people take it and run with it like a kid with a sharp pencil.....then they fall and we all lose.

 

[DallasCowpoke]

Full Article Link w/ Video

Town of Harrold allows teachers to carry concealed guns

HARROLD, TX -- In this tiny Texas town, children and their parents don't give much thought to safety at the community's lone school -- mostly because some of the teachers are carrying concealed weapons.

In remote Harrold, the nearest sheriff's office is 30 minutes away, and people tend to know -- and trust -- one another. So the school board voted to let teachers bring guns to school.
"We don't have money for a security guard, but this is a better solution," Superintendent David Thweatt said. "A shooter could take out a guard or officer with a visible, holstered weapon, but our teachers have master's degrees, are older and have had extensive training. And their guns are hidden. We can protect our children."
In the awful aftermath of last week's Connecticut elementary school shooting, lawmakers in a growing number of states -- including Oklahoma, Missouri, Minnesota, South Dakota and Oregon -- have said they will consider laws allowing teachers and school administrators to carry firearms at school.
Texas law bans guns in schools unless the school has given written authorization. Arizona and six other states have similar laws with exceptions for people who have licenses to carry concealed weapons.
Harrold's school board voted unanimously in 2007 to allow employees to carry weapons. After obtaining a state concealed-weapons permit, each employee who wants to carry a weapon must be approved by the board based on his or her personality and reaction to a crisis, Thweatt said.
Employees also must undergo training in crisis intervention and hostage situations. And they must use bullets that minimize the risk of ricochet, similar to those carried by air marshals on planes.



Full Article Link w/ Video

 

[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.

 

[CanadianCowboysFan]

“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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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 rolleyes, 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.

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.