NRA calls for armed school guards

Status
Not open for further replies.
Bunnymund said:
This is a pretty funny article on what some Americans got for Christmas, and how overjoyed they look about it :hmmm:

http://www.news.com.au/national/us-...r-christmas-toys/story-fndo4eg9-1226543962179

The gun laws aren't going to get changed any time soon so there's no point in arguing about it, in fact arm the teachers with guns if this is the kind of crazy shit people are getting for christmas 8(
Click to expand...

People like guns. It is a hobby for some people to collect them, take them to the shooting range, etc.

It's not 'crazy shit'. Desperate people just don't have anything else better to do then try to demonize anything that isn't fluffy and cute.
In reality, if you say there is something wrong with them, then you have to say there is something wrong with people who, lets say, play Call of Duty or some other 1st person shooter. Because it's the same thing except wrapped into a disc, and even at that, you are virtually killing people rather then targets and game.
 
Here's the way I see guns. I don't care for the OP's thread title, no offense. NRA are the NRA, I have not met a person that came out and said "Hey I'm in the NRA." Putting military at schools is a huge misdirect. I think it's funny when people say it's not the guns that kill people, it's the people that kill people.

If I had a pistol, no better yet, if I had a knife or better yet if I had a rock.. it's a lot harder to hurt/kill someone than it would be with an automatic or semi automatic. I wouldn't mind if all guns were taken away. I wouldn't mind if the police were only able to hold night sticks. Why are semi-automatics allowed in the first place mind you? For protection? That's a bit excessive. Who are you needing protection from?

Are you storing up for the zombie apocalypse? I mean seriously. There is no reason to have semi-automatic/automatic rifles in the first place.

Though let's jump back to the OP's thread title, If you had armed guards, well then there might be more extremes taken into account. Those guards would be intimidating but if someone is truly a psychopath/sociopath who is null and void of empathy/sympathy and care, then they will find a way to do it, even if it's to the extreme. School shootings are nothing new. They are not because of a certain group of people.

It's when one individual loses his mind and does something so senseless as this.

For now I say, just take away everything but pistols/shotguns/single shot rifles. I say pistol because of self defense.
 
Shu said:
For now I say, just take away everything but pistols/shotguns/single shot rifles. I say pistol because of self defense.
Click to expand...

The VA Tech shooter used nothing more then .22 and 9mm pistols, while the Aurora shooter had an assault rifle. Yet, the Va Tech shooter killed more people and over a much larger area then the Aurora shooter.
 
Shinra Executive said:
The VA Tech shooter used nothing more then .22 and 9mm pistols, while the Aurora shooter had an assault rifle. Yet, the Va Tech shooter killed more people and over a much larger area then the Aurora shooter.
Click to expand...

That means nothing to me. 1) College Campus = More density 2) Elementary school..

If the fella had a fully auto or semi auto - the body count would of sky rocketed. More accuracy, middle distance and long distance = less chances to fail.
 
Shu said:
That means nothing to me. 1) College Campus = More density 2) Elementary school..

If the fella had a fully auto or semi auto - the body count would of sky rocketed. More accuracy, middle distance and long distance = less chances to fail.
Click to expand...

The Aurora shooting was in a movie theater. Doesn't get much denser then that.

The point I'm making is that the cost of a bullet is the cost of a bullet. Assault weapons are exponentially more expensive in the kill-everbody-you-can cookbook.
 
So your solution in the end is to axe all guns, I'm with you there then.
 
haha all Shinra is doing is showing that handguns are just as bad as semi auto's and proving that they should all be banned.
 
Shu said:
So your solution in the end is to axe all guns, I'm with you there then.
Click to expand...

My solution in the end is for people to realize we live in a bad world and should properly protect themselves.

If it was standard for people in general to be armed, sort of how it was in the 1800's, do you think people would be as bold as to roll up in ANY social junction unleashing Hell?
I mean, seriously, if a person walks into a diner ready to rob it and they see someone with a pistol oon their side enjoying some coffee and waffles, do you think they would still attempt to rob the place?
You can sit there and say, in a certain case with a certain person, they would. But for the most part, the person would not go through with it.

Pro-guns has something that anti-guns doesn't and it's that crime would go down in all sectors altogether. You have a lower death toll in gun free countries, but the embarrassing truth is that violent crime has doubled in those countries. It is a false sense of security, as being mortally assaulted is just enough reason to have a gun.
 
Shinra Executive said:
but the embarrassing truth is that violent crime has doubled in those countries. It is a false sense of security, as being mortally assaulted is just enough reason to have a gun.
Click to expand...

Prove it. Are you referring to terrorism? You can't justify violence vs body county. That's stupid. Less people dying is better, bottom line. Violence will always exist.

Furthermore, you can't go postal with a knife or a stick or a stone.

I say If guns still remain then up the ammo cost and by up it, up it a lot. It's stupid to think people can buy .223 ammo for as cheap as it is. Also with a .22 it might be harder to "kill" but it will still maim. It's dirt cheap.
 
Shu said:
Prove it. Are you referring to terrorism? You can't justify violence vs body county. That's stupid. Less people dying is better, bottom line. Violence will always exist.

Furthermore, you can't go postal with a knife or a stick or a stone.

I say If guns still remain then up the ammo cost and by up it, up it a lot. It's stupid to think people can buy .223 ammo for as cheap as it is. Also with a .22 it might be harder to "kill" but it will still maim. It's dirt cheap.
Click to expand...

There was actually a comedian talking about this! Everyone can have a gun, just make ammo super expensive. Then people will think twice before popping a cap in someones ass!
 
Shu said:
Prove it. Are you referring to terrorism? You can't justify violence vs body county. That's stupid. Less people dying is better, bottom line. Violence will always exist.
Click to expand...

I looked at some statistics, and yes violent crime has doubled in those countries. Another interesting statistic is that 53 percent of all robberies in those countries are in-home robberies, whereas in America, it is a mere 13 percent.
It should be self-evident why. Breaking into someone's house is a bold move by default here in the States, because people are ARMED. Best believe a man asleep with his family is going to grab a pistol at the first sign of a criminal.
Wtf are you going to do with a knife besides leave your family at the mercy of criminals? Europe has the answer- hide in a closet and pray for the cops. Yes, pray to a God you don't believe in and wait for the ones with guns.
It does not go without irony :)
 
And that same man could accidentally shoot his son who is sneaking back into the house late at night when he should be asleep in his room. Shit happens :monster:

I can understand having rifles, and possibly pistols, but there's absolutely no reason you would ever need something like an AK-47. It's unnecessary.
 
Where are these statistics though. I don't voice that type of strong fact, unless I can cite it. I am not trying to be an ass, but that's a very strong assumption claiming that if people had a gun, this "robbery" can be prevented. Again you voiced another statistic, you need to cite your source again, because until then people can't snopes it or anything else.

I would say, I know Nashville and I know Oxford, that's only because I have lived here and done the research. Though outside of these two towns, everything is literally facts that I can't cite. The news is not even correct most of the time, because of the over dramatization that must exist for ratings. It's like when 9/11 happened the first thing I heard was.. "we think the white house was hit" on fox news. That immediately hit a chord in me, and said .. "wait let me see for myself." Obviously it was way off.

So please, explain which countries you are researching before putting percentages out there. Are you referring to England? Ireland? Scotland? Are you referring to countries in Asia or even Africa? (which I doubt thanks to Africans have a lot of America's guns).
 
If all guns should be banned than I want not even cops to have guns. I've seen too many police officers that are trigger happy with their weapons. I'd prefer all weapons to be banned tbh (meaning no one has a gun). But I refuse to accept that "oh, only the people who will 'protect' you will have guns!" or the disney idea that criminals won't obtain weapons through illegal means.... uh, no. :wacky: Not only is that naive but it's dangerous for a lot of reasons.

1.) Criminals don't listen to laws, that's why they're criminals. So adding another law won't stop them from harming someone. :wacky:
2.) Criminals rely on illegal means to obtain their guns (meaning they bought the guns from someone who buys/sells guns outside of our country--which means U.S. gun laws are no good).
3.) Whether you think it's paranoid or not, anything could happen.

What if you live in the mountains of Montana (miles and miles away from people/stores/ or cops) and a bear or mountain cat corners you and your kids... what can you do? Call the cops and have them arrive with their weapons long after you or your loved ones are already hurt, or worse, dead? Or what if you live out in the middle of Kansas (hours away from police) and someone tries to break into your house and steal something or harm someone you love? What do you do, call the police and politely tell the intruder that he has to wait to murder you until the cops come because that's fair? :wacky:

What good does that do? Guns allow them to protect themselves from lots of situations; you can't decide whether or not someone is capable of protecting themselves. Our country is a far and wide place; the majority of us live a decent distance from others (including cops), and trusting the police with our safety is just dangerous and naive.

I mean, this kind of logic goes hand in hand with people's accusations against religion. Some non-religious people feel like religion should be illegal/outlawed because it "inspires" violence, some idiots like the Westboro Baptist Church/Zionist/and Extremist Muslims use their religion as a justification for their shameful acts (despite millions of others who remain peaceful)--should we ban religion too? Come to think of it, some people use the internet to bully and attack young kids until they kill themselves; should we ban the internet?

Blaming guns because psychos use them for crimes is like blaming a pencil for bad test scores.

You can go ahead and debate anything I said but I won't reply--after being on this forum for so many years I've realized that you'll never get through to someone when they're set in their ways. I just wanted to say my piece and hopefully people that are unsure about their opinion on this issue will read my post and see why banning guns isn't the solution.
 
Last edited:
When I was still in highschool the thought of metal detectors, armed policemen, and the talk of mesh or clear backpacks so everything that was in your backpack could be seen by all was a bit scary to say the least.

Now, when we think we need to lockdown our children with armed guards, policemen, and teachers... I know that life here has gotten to be truly scary. I'm sorry, but we shouldn't need future teachers who have had x amount of target practice and a conceal and carry license in addition to a Bachelor's in education to be able to qualify as teachers for our children. But I do agree that we need policemen at our highschools. Not including weapons of any type, society has turned so violent, there are a lot of kids in the highschools and even middle schools now who simply do not want to be there and do not know how to behave. I don't think the teachers should have to play parent and discipline these kids when they decide they don't want to be in class anymore. These kids should only be allowed so many strikes before they aren't allowed to continue to cause trouble at their schools. It's a priviledge to be able to get an education, it's a shame some don't see that as a worthwhile thing to have nowadays.

As far as what the NRA said, I don't see that panning out too well. Our cities are already stressed enough as far as law enforcement goes. I don't see the federal or state deficits improving by adding thousands more armed police officers just for the sake of our schools into the mix, either. So while adding more guns to try and defeat the amount of guns out there now just seems a bit silly.

First, I can't see how an average person would need something like an assault rifle. I don't care if you are a hunter or etc...it just makes zero sense to me. I don't think small guns like handguns or larger guns that only shoot a couple of shots before they need reloading should be banned.

I think the real problem is the mental health situation in this country. I.e. there really isn't much of a way that allows for access to treatment and the necessary care of these people unless you have pre-existing insurance...and even then the screening for it is almost non-existent because screening falls on the hospitals who are for the most part ill-equipped to be able to deal with these people. I really hate the way society shuns the mentally ill. ...and the government doesn't give a crap about them either because as far as votes, money, and any contributions go...they can't get any of these from them so naturally their needs fall along they wayside. UNTIL shootings, like those in the past continue to happen.

There needs to be better screening on WHO can get their hands on guns and the accountability as far as owning a gun. As far as I've seen, the screening is fairly minimal and people can get their hot hands on one in as little as a few days. There should be something in the screening process that not only screens to see if this is a former or current criminal, but also something that screens for the person also having any history of a violent mental illness. ...Yes this would be an obvious form of discrimination, but we are already discerning against former and current criminals. I can't see why someone with Schizophrenia who may or may not choose to take their medication one day could be the safest person to get their hands on a gun. I also think that guns should be required to have some sort of lock on them when not in use, or physically be locked up when that isn't the case. If you just leave them laying around your house, kids or anyone can pretty much get their hands on them. If you have a person who has the capability of being mentally or emotionally unstable in your house then leaving them out or having them there to begin with probably isn't the best idea. Owning a gun shouldn't be a right, it should be a privilege that accounts a degree of responsibility.

Of course, this is not going to elimate all gun violence. We are living in a violent society today. To take them all away you are going to have to take away the second ammendment, and I feel putting all of the power into our goverments already slimey hands isn't the answer either. Things have already turned big brother enough, how much power do we really want to give them and expect them to do responsibly with, when they can't even manage to agree on a plan for the upcoming fiscal cliff in a few days :wacky:

In short, I don't think taking away all guns is going to be the answer. At short view, it may seem the easiest, but for the long run I don't think it's ultimately the smartest. More needs to be done in the long run because as it has been said time and time again on the subject, guns don't kill people, people kill people.
 
Shinra Executive said:
*That awesome moment when you realize a complimentary fact was underrated* :)

http://winteryknight.wordpress.com/...-in-the-four-years-after-the-1997-uk-gun-ban/
Click to expand...

This doesn't mean anything, though. Unless you're saying that you would rather be in a country with higher gun murder statistics than home burglaries. If that is the case, then that's just stupid. And if you wouldn't rather live in a country with a higher rate of gun murder, then that argument is well and truly pointless.

These burglaries do happen, but it almost never involves someone being killed. The fact that it is extremely rare for it to result in someone being murdered is fucking fantastic. Any sane person would rather have their money and possessions taken than that of their own lives, or the lives of their loved ones.
 
The Welsh Paddy said:
This doesn't mean anything, though. Unless you're saying that you would rather be in a country with higher gun murder statistics than home burglaries. If that is the case, then that's just stupid. And if you wouldn't rather live in a country with a higher rate of gun murder, then that argument is well and truly pointless.
Click to expand...

I certainly do not want to go to a country with criminals hitting the jackpot on disarmed citizens, breaking into their houses like pinatas and doubling violent crime. If it means guns being around causing more death, then so be it. I want to live in a country where I'm not a sheep to the wolves. The only person who could possibly be anti-gun are those who are simply have never been transgressed against.

Frankly, I'm tired of this subject because anti-guns is a fantasy. A free society is supposed to have a right to defend itself, not be a glutton for punishment by other people. Lower death tolls means exactly SHIT to the people that have been mortally assaulted or even died because of it. Being armed is a responsibility of freedom, not a perk, and no amount of anti-gun opposition is going to change that fact.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top