General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region Forums
If i am a teacher with a CCW and "a good guy with a gun" small enough to conceal
And a bad guy comes in with assault weapons with large magazines I should be able to jump out and kill or incapacitate shooter with my small concealed weapon then why is there a need to manufacture the assault weapons? It would be case closed according to NRA Wayne LaPierre, just need smaller weapons to arm teachers, we could melt down the large weapons and arm everyone. It would also end the need for Alex Jones and Pratt to be interested in large weapons.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
TheCowsCameHome
(40,167 posts)The whole idea is ludicrous.
Squinch
(50,911 posts)If his recommendations are followed, and teachers are armed, I think we would need a stopwatch to time how long it would take for an angry middle-schooler to get a hold of his teacher's gun and hurt or kill someone.
My guess: it would be less than a week.
Flatulo
(5,005 posts)I wonder if there has been any progress in biometrically enabled guns? You know, something that could only be fired by the proper owner.
The other thing I was thinking about was Tasers. They do have their disadvantages, but they're non lethal.
Squinch
(50,911 posts)It is ridiculous that we are even considering this before any kind of meaningful gun control. This country has gone nuts.
Flatulo
(5,005 posts)your mindset.
Squinch
(50,911 posts)In two of those three occasions, if I were carrying a gun, I would be dead today. In the third, the police subdued the gunmen before anything happened, so my carrying a gun would not have been helpful.
I venture to say the vast majority of gun advocates arguing for more people to be armed have never been in a gun situation. They have completely unrealistic expectations of what a gun would do for them. They have some childish fantasy that the gun makes them heroic and unassailable.
That attitude is idiotic.
Would I kill to save my own life? Are you certain that when you went to kill you would be successful? Are you certain that it would not make you MORE vulnerable?
I don't believe attempts at killing WOULD save my life. And I have had three experiences on which I base my opinion.
Flatulo
(5,005 posts)for one lifetime.
I have to wonder though - when one is faced with certain death at the hands of a possibly suicidal gunman such as Adam Lanza, how could resistance with a gun have possibly had a worse outcome than what actually happened? I mean, it was an absolutely fucking unmitigated disaster, right? Every single solitary person who tried to stop him without deadly force ended up dead, except the cops (who had guns). If even one person had been able to resist with a gun, there is a possibility, your experiences notwithstanding, that they might have been able to slow him down, pin him down, or outright kill him. We'll never know. However, I daresay that your personals experiences, in which you are 100% certain that you would have ended up dead if you'd had a gun (and I wonder how you can know this, since you didn't have a gun to test the hypothesis), surely do not cover the entire universe of possible outcomes of resistance of force with force.
I'm not suggesting that teachers carry guns in school. They're not trained for it, and I agree that there is too great a possibility that a disturbed or enraged student could get control of it. The absolute last thing we want to do is force anyone who has an intrinsic fear or hatred of guns to touch one. It's not only cruel, it's quite likely illegal as well.
But we have to be realistic. There are 300 million guns in America. It's one thing to shriek "We have to get rid of these guns!" and quite another to actually do it. The gun ban that the congress and the president are now considering would grandfather existing high capacity firearms and magazines, leaving 30 million or so in the hands of civilians. The legislation that is being discussed would not have stopped an Adam Lanza. And for my money, anything that doesn't meet that criterion will be a failure. We'll know this right after the next massacre (heaven forbid, but it will happen again).
I have proposed, and I still stand by it, that we ban the possession of AR and AK type rifles, as well as high-capacity ammunition magazines, capping clip capacity at, say, 7 rounds for all remaining rifles and handguns. I think the AR and AK type rifles are the weapon of choice of these loonies because they've been romanticized in the popular media as being especially cool at killing.
Our very first priority should be to keep our children safe, and to that end I would be comfortable with letting states or cities/towns decide for themselves whether or not to place armed, trained officers in schools. I don't reflexively believe that being in the same building as an armed officer will traumatize our kids, because they see armed people all the time - cops. We teach them that cops are the good guys. If anything, it should reassure them that we're doing everything we can to ensure their safety.
We put cops in banks, airports, stadiums, malls etc because their presence act as a deterrent. No deterrent is 100% effective because the world is an imperfect place. But if a madman were roaming the halls of my kids school gunning down every living thing, I'd sure as hell want an armed and trained cop nearby rather than heroic but doomed teachers trying to stop bullets with their bodies. We know how well that worked.
The indisputable fact is that Lanza was able to keep shooting until the cops arrived because there was absolutely ZERO chance of stopping him. If a cop can improve those odds to anything larger than zero, I'll take those odds.
Flatulo
(5,005 posts)disturbed or enraged student could get control of the gun.
however, and I'm just thinking out loud here, I have to wonder what was going through the minds of those heroic souls that tried to rush or tackle Adam Lanza. We're they wishing that they had a more effective attack? I'm sure they were acting out of protective instinct, and they must have known that placing their bodies in the line of fire would end their lives.
But I wonder if they wished, if only for the last few seconds of their lives, that they had a gun?
rightsideout
(978 posts)This isn't the Wild West and arming teachers is a stupid idea. You want to set an example to your kids that they need to live in fear and need to have a gun as a crutch for their paranoia. I don't want American kids thinking they need an adult around with a gun to feel safe. You're making a mockery out of Freedom and contributing to the gun culture problem in this country.
You are not "Free" if you feel you need to carry around a gun. You're a prisoner of your own fears and paranoia. So don't push those fears on the rest of us.
If they armed teachers in my kid's school I'd pull them out. I don't want my kids near some adult who thinks they can play hero and would probably catch one between the eyes before they knew what was going on.
This country is filling up with a bunch of paranoid loons.
Flatulo
(5,005 posts)trained in the use of force, then so be it. I don't think it should be teachers, but something more like a marshall.
If our kids our unsafe, then we need to fix that and to hell with PC considerations. Tens of millions of kids grew up in rural areas around guns for hundreds of years (and still do). It hasn't damaged their psyches. They see cops every day. The mere presence of a gun does not induce psychosis.
DebJ
(7,699 posts)The students in a local system are expert at stealing wallets and cell phones and cash from
teachers here, even teachers who have been teaching for many years.
The first thing we and our teacher friends thought about this nonsense is that a student
is going to kill a teacher.
Especially since with tighter budgets, students with severe emotional problems are
NOT receiving any treatment, and are left to disrupt the classrooms all day long.
Squinch
(50,911 posts)teachers. As I said before, our country has gone nuts.
ileus
(15,396 posts)daily only makes you an unwilling victim.
Having a small conceal carry firearm isn't a guarantee you'll even get a chance to defend yourself, or loved ones if attacked. It only gives you another tool to defend yourself with, remember the #1 tool is your brain.
For your home a nice AR or shotgun is your best bet for self defense.
Remember pistols are only for use when you can't get to your long gun, or to be used until you get to your rifle.
Stay safe.
OneTenthofOnePercent
(6,268 posts)If there is a school shooter, having trustworthy armed persons already at the school when the shooting starts is bad. Using the phone and calling for trustworthy armed persons to show up (& then waiting for them to arrive) and save everyone is good.
Proactive - bad; reactive - good... MMmkay? It's really pretty simple.
Heimer
(63 posts)Proactive - having a chance to stop the tragedy, even it it may be slim.
Reactive - showing up to tag the bodies.
Reactive is exactly how Newtown went. Forgive me for not sharing your feelings that reactive is acceptable..
Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)I'm pretty sure that was intended as sarcasm... 
Heimer
(63 posts)It's much easier to read this time around. Caffeine works wonders.
Note to self: No posting before the morning brew.. 
gollygee
(22,336 posts)if we trust you to carry a gun to school.
It's funny how people think teachers are so untrustworthy, until the issue is whether they can be trusted with a gun.
Chorophyll
(5,179 posts)KharmaTrain
(31,706 posts)...is NRA framing and one that is a distraction. I'm sure those who massacred innocent people felt they were "good guys" as well. This isn't some 60s Western TV show where there's those in white and black hats. And this ignores the problems that lead to the abuse of weapons that have become far to common in our country. Using NRA framing only polarizes...
loose wheel
(112 posts)Either they knew they weren't good guuys or their minds were so far gone that they were dangerously, criminally insane. The vast number of people don't abuse their equipmnet or their rights.
A fifteen year old that was at home during a break-in and was beaten and murdered while his twelve year old sister was raped and murdered is not somehow morally superior to this young man who used an "assault" rifle to drive off two intruders..... http://www.examiner.com/article/15-year-old-boy-uses-his-father-s-gun-to-stop-2-home-invaders
KharmaTrain
(31,706 posts)...nor do equivelency games. One murder is no better or worse than another when an innocent person is murdered with a gun. If the answer to the gun problem in this country is more guns then we truly have failed as a society. Sadly the massacres will continue as those who value weapons more than lives muddy the "discussion" with these type of tactics.
Shameful!!
loose wheel
(112 posts)The fact is that there are bad people in the world. It's always been just that case. They've used every concievable weapon throughout history, whether it was a rock, or a stone axe, or a spear, or a gun. The argument that good people should disarm because bad people might use something to commit their crimes is not a strong argument.
With a gun in her hand and relatively little training a 110 lbs. woman is potentially more dangerous than her 230 lbs. would-be attacker. Even if she is only just as powerful, he may be effectively detered by the weapon, or effectively dealt with if he chooses to play with fire. I really don't even see how that can be argued.
If that woman in India had been armed she could have stopped her attackers before they ever started, rapists don't like it when their chosen targets can fight back.
Bad people will do bad things until they are forced to stop. Always.
Response to loose wheel (Reply #18)
Post removed
loose wheel
(112 posts)Do you deny that an armed woman is capable of preventing her own rape?
She was not "acting a certain way". She was not "dressed a certain way". She didn't go to "some place she shouldn't have". They attacked anyway, it's what bad men do. All I am saying is that she should have had that last ditch final line option to deter or stop her attackers.
spanone
(135,791 posts)Flatulo
(5,005 posts)start shooting children?
My goodness, if there were a more clear, unambiguous definition of pure evil, I'd be interested in hearing it.
loose wheel
(112 posts)Inside 20 meters, any decent caliber handgun is just as useful as any "assault" rifle. Proabably a little more so to be honest, the handgun is a little more maneuverable and easy to fire. The weapon at the link below is a good place to start looking. It's a 9 mm semi-auto with a barrel length of just 6.1" and a weight of 19oz. It's easily concealable on your person, and anybody that spends an hour or so at the range every month practicing can be proficient enough with it.
It could even be loaded with flangible rounds so it won't penetrate thin walls while remaining a threat to any assailant that happened along.
http://www.smith-wesson.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/Product4_750001_750051_809560_-1_780153_757781_757781_ProductDisplayErrorView_Y
Bigmack
(8,020 posts)loose wheel
(112 posts)The teacher might miss, but being under fire might be enough to make a bad guy stop. Just the threat might be enough. It's better than the current option which is nothing but sheep to a slaughter.
Bigmack
(8,020 posts)In mine, a lot of confusion and yelling and shit flying around.
Certainly the first few, anyway.
Of course, that was just the Marine Corps... not much training... 
Seen this...? or Part 2
GreenStormCloud
(12,072 posts)Rampage shooter was a police firearms instructor, ie, and expert. In the real world rampage shooters are low skilled shooters.
The shooter knows that there is an armed student present. In the real world the shooter does not expect any armed resistance.
The student is wearing restrictive clothing, and gloves, that inhibits his access to his gun. In the real world, people with CCWs dress with access to the gun in mind.
The student is ALWAYS seated in the same spot, in each test. So the EXPERT police shooter knows that he has to shoot that student right away. In the real world the armed resistance could be anywhee.
The shooter does not shoot any other students but goes directly for the armed student after shoot the prof. In the real world the shooters start shooting random students.
They should try a fair test along these lines:
Shooter to be a student with thirty minutes of handgun training.
Shooter is to be told that there are no armed students.
Shooter is to be instructed to shoot as many people as he can. (Except for a test monitor who can end the session.)
Student to be dressed as they normally would be.
Student to be seated randomly.
Try that kind of test a few times and see what happens.
loose wheel
(112 posts)I don't want to talk about it, but it the first time was close to a conceal carry situation. I happened to spot the attackers a couple of seconds before he pulled the trigger, just stupid luck. I'm still here, they aren't.
The other post failry well addresses any rebuttal I may have made in regards to this video. Plus real world experience shows, repeatedly, that people with concealed firearms are successful in stopping criminals.
Bigmack
(8,020 posts).. who shot their own guy... Pat Tilman?
How about the trained LA cops who shot 90 rounds at an unarmed man and hit him 15 times... killed him? What happened to the other 75 rounds?
How about the NYC cops who wounded 8 bystanders shooting at a perp?
And that's with training.
The "Die Hard" movies are not documentaries.
Pat Tilman was in a combat zone and seemed to have been seperated from the rest of his unit. Mistakes were made, but war is hell. We are not talking about a confused combat zone, we are talking about a situation where someone who clearly does not belong has entered a building while carrying tools that can cause death and destruction.
As far as cops, unless the officer in question happens to enjoy shooting and goes to the range regularly, cops are generally poor shots that only qualify once a year. Training budgets are typically limited so that the Training Officers only give extra training to officers who need it and special training to officers that want it and are willing to work for free on off days to get it. This is from firsthand experience.
As far as those 90 rounds 15/90 (25%) hit what the officers were aiming at, as far as the other 75/90 experience says that they probably shot the building behind the suspect (just hope it wasn't a McDonald's), His car, the road, their cars, and each other. Experience being a similar case where over 120 rounds were fired.
The NYC incident is probably fairly close to the same. I don't have specifics as relates to that.
If a teacher is only as "well-trained" as those cops, one could expect 2/8 (25%) bullets to strike home and likely stop the threat. With the right ammunition load out, walls would be safe barriers.
Option # 2 leaves somebody that may choose to be armed and able to defend their students unarmed instead and at the mercy of any madman whether he only has a knife or something more dangerous.
hack89
(39,171 posts)they are not the best self defense weapons - a handgun is better. But they are excellent target and hunting rifles.
LaPierre is an idiot. Why not talk to actual gun owners instead of him?
Recursion
(56,582 posts)Assault weapons aren't in particular "large" (in fact, they're smaller than traditional rifles), and the size of a weapon doesn't really say anything about its power.
If you were to buy a handgun today, it would probably be a semi-automatic with a detachable magazine, which means it would have the exact same rate of fire as the assault weapon. In fact, it was normal, everyday handguns that Cho used at Virginia Tech, and these are also the weapons used in the majority of murders and the vast majority of murders by firearm.
why is there a need to manufacture the assault weapons
Because people like owning low-power light-weight rifles with external designs that are less than a half-century old.
Orrex
(63,172 posts)And a machine gun nest in the cafeteria.
JohnnyRingo
(18,618 posts)Trust me, I've scoured the web looking for that image of Les Moore as hall monitor with a water cooled machine gun mounted to his desk. They're all gone.
You may be too young to recall the comic strip by tom Batiuk that was popular in the '70s, but there was never a shooting at Westview High School. LOL
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Funky_winkerbean
Erose999
(5,624 posts)every 10,000 school officials (teachers, admin, custodians, etc) who are packing, there will be the one instance where the guns will be turned on the children.
You can't solve gun violence with just "more guns". Its like fucking for virginity or bombing for peace.
JohnnyRingo
(18,618 posts)How many concealed weapons were in that Aurora Colorado theater?
Don't tell me "none", people in Colorado think they have to take them to church. No one stood up and opened fire, and neither would I. How many were at the Giffords shooting? One person admitted he had one, but there were likely many more. No one did anything.
It's human nature when one sees anything from an assault rifle to an RPG, to head the other direction. Indeed, most untrained people will flee the area when they see a colt .45.
I tell my CCW friends that carrying a gun does not automatically install the kill instinct into them. That's the result of intense training.
loose wheel
(112 posts)There was more than one CCW holder present, they thought about trying to shoot Loughner but they realized that their were innocent civilians in the shot background and decided not to draw due to the unacceptable risk of hitting one of them. They did wrestle Loughner to the ground, disarm, and hold him until police arrived.
Savannahmann
(3,891 posts)In Georgia, they spend roughly six months training police officers. Afterwards, they spend hours every year retraining them on among other things, drawing their weapons and shooting. Yet Police Officers still get shot, and die. President Reagan and James Brady got shot, and they were surrounded by the most highly trained police force in the world all of whom were prepared for just that incident. So the argument that if you have a gun hidden under your shirt or whatever makes you able to defend against any violence is asinine.
The only way is to eliminate the guns, the ability of someone to harm someone else at a distance. Granted there would still be crossbows, or other types of weapons with projectiles of some sort. But they would be large, slow, and impossible to conceal. For some reason, this basic logic escapes so many.
GreenStormCloud
(12,072 posts)Police officer spend only a tiny amount of that six months on firearms training. They spend it on studying law, (kind of hard to enforce the law if you don't know the law), arrest procedures, search and seizure, how to write a report, how to drive, how criminals operate, etc.
Most criminals desire to commit their crime, usually robbery, and then escape. To do that they will have to go through several steps. First they will have to select the victim. They will choose one that they feel completely confident that they can subdue. Often they will look for a person who is oblivious to his surrounds so they can surprise him. And of course, they will look for weaker people.
Then the criminal will try to isolate the victim. If the intended victim is alert and observes that he is being isolated, or boxed in, then he has time to get ready. (NO. YOU DON'T DRAW THE GUN YET.) You clear the path to the gun, but still keep it concealed. Most street criminals will observe the "clearing the path" move and will abort their attack. There are lots of good videos on the subject, and they are not John Wayne-ish.
Guns can't be uninvented. So your wish to eliminate them from the Earth is nothing more than a fantasy. And the murder rate for the medieval period was very high.
No one here claims that a gun on their person will enable them to defend against ANY violence. But it will damn sure enable a person to defend against much violence. I choose not to be a helpless victim.
