The Chronicle of the Horse
MagazineNewsHorse SportsHorse CareCOTH StoreVoicesThe Chronicle UntackedDirectoriesMarketplaceDates & Results
 
Page 2 of 10 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 195
  1. #21
    Join Date
    Jun. 27, 2005
    Location
    KY
    Posts
    4,519

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LauraKY View Post
    Are we going to arm school bus drivers so kids aren't shot in the bus lines waiting to load?
    I have two friends who drive a bus. They are in more danger from the kids ON the bus than they would be from a loon targeting a bus.

    Just this week one of my bus driver friends was threatened by a 13 year old girl on a field trip. My friend didn't even know the kid.

    In the next county over, a kid was carrying a 'partial' BB gun on the bus last Monday. It would have not been functional, but what the heck.
    Kid was arrested when they arrived at the school.

    In my county there have been several threats and school lock downs this past week. The threats coming from kids who think it's funny to make those calls.

    IMO they all need there butts whooped at home again, as it was common when I grew up. No disciplining allowed these days?

    ************************
    \"Horses lend us the wings we lack\"


    4 members found this post helpful.

  2. #22
    Join Date
    Mar. 30, 2007
    Location
    Hollowed out volcano in the South Pacific.
    Posts
    11,106

    Default

    Many parents are pretty much absentee these days. Too busy working or doing other things and the prevailing opinion seems to be that schools are supposed to be teaching their kids life stuff that should come from parents and their presence in a child's life.
    Thus do we growl that our big toes have,
    at this moment, been thrown up from below!


    6 members found this post helpful.

  3. #23
    Join Date
    Sep. 8, 2006
    Location
    Fredericksburg, VA
    Posts
    1,919

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by lilitiger2 View Post
    But sadly, bad guys DO get guns and there is not much we can do about it.
    Respectfully, this assertion drives me nuts in this debate! Yes, criminals are resourceful in obtaining guns. THAT DOESN'T MEAN WE HAVE TO HELP THEM BY MAKING THEM AVAILABLE LEGALLY!

    And I'm referring to assault rifles and large-capacity magazines and clips. I do NOT want to outlaw all guns.

    Let's say we ban assualt rifles and the ban saves not a single life. At least, as a society, we can say we did what we could to make them difficult to obtain. Isn't that worth anything? It is to me.
    Everyone is entitled to my opinion.


    10 members found this post helpful.

  4. #24
    Join Date
    Mar. 30, 2007
    Location
    Hollowed out volcano in the South Pacific.
    Posts
    11,106

    Default

    Many of them just buy through private sales. Here in VA, more gun sales are done privately than through the dealers.
    Thus do we growl that our big toes have,
    at this moment, been thrown up from below!



  5. #25
    Join Date
    May. 5, 2002
    Posts
    1,616

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sunridge1 View Post
    Where is the country I grew up in? A time of innocence and naivete. Of course we were hiding under desks in lieu of a nuclear attack. We did have a bomb shelter or maybe it was just a nuclear meltdown shelter, ICRS.

    I do know that we could move around school freely. No armed nuthin', teachers could actually discipline, even the worst kids never hurt anyone, no fights, no suicides, no ADHD. We didn't eat fake food, sugar was a treat not a staple. Corn syrup came in jars. Gah! So glad I don't have kids or grandkids.
    Big green thumbs up!

    What IS wrong these days. I remember going to elementary school in the mid/late 70's. I remember pickups in the parking lot with rifles in the window racks, maybe a pistol on the seat, and the doors unlocked. Nobody ever used those guns to kill someone, or even threaten someone. I really don't think the thought of using one of those weapons on another student even crossed anyones mind! The guns were not there to kill other people with. They were tools that were used by the ranch kids to kill varmits, hunt with, and shoot up tin cans with. There was the occasional scuffle or fist fight, but no one EVER pulled out a very accessible gun and used it on another student. Now granted I grew up in a pretty small town, but I don't know that the same would hold true for that still very small town today. Even the small communities seem to be less and less safe as drug use and gangs seep into them.


    3 members found this post helpful.

  6. #26
    Join Date
    Oct. 25, 2012
    Posts
    3,779

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Louise View Post
    Yup, and all those guns, in the hands of all those would be heroes, are the reason that the firefighters in my town had to deal with a house set on fire last year by a young man who had killed members of his own family, and are now having to deal with the deaths of two of their own, and the injury of two more, as they responded to a fire and were fired upon. We have lost two valued members of our community, two real heroes, who only wanted to help, and lost their lives as a result.

    It's time we woke up and admitted we have a gun problem in this country and something has to be done. I'm sick to death of all of these macho gun wavers who dream of being the ones to save the day when a shooter comes to their neighborhood. I'm afraid it's too late for anything to be done. I'm afraid that we waited too long and that there are too many of these things out there to ever be able to see a decrease in this kind of horrific violence. All I know is that my heart breaks for the families of those firefighters, and the people who lost their homes because the firefighters could not get to the scene because of some assh#le with a gun.

    Don't anyone DARE tell me that, if those firefighters had gone in there with guns drawn, they wouldn't be dead now.
    From talking to a number of people around me about this all week, I've figured out that there are a couple of hidden issues here with the NRA:

    LaPierre certainly does NOT speak for the vast majority of ordinary people who keep a gun for hunting or course of last resort in case of a home invasion, which is the vast (and silent!) majority of gun owners in America. They are perfectly happy with an ordinary rifle, shotgun or revolver and do not feel threatened by stiffer gun laws.
    They know perfectly well no one is planning to "disarm them."

    The NRA types have a very old-fashioned interpretation of the 2nd Amendment; one that has not been reality since before the First World War. Up until that time, the U.S. did not have a large, standing military "establishment;" it was a conglomeration of State militias, State "Volunteer" regiments called up in times of emergency, and with the technology of the time it was understood that "One Man equals One Rifle equals One Vote." Encoded in this was the belief that was handed down from coonskin-cap times that we should be very, very afraid of too much power in the hands of a centralized government with a standing army. These "well-regulated militia" men bearing arms were, in the conventional wisdom of their time, a check on this.

    The trouble now is that way of thinking is close to 125 years out of date. And just as civilians should not be armed with rocket-propelled grenade launchers, bazookas or howitzers, nor should be allowed to mount the same on the tops of their Hummers, we need to look at whether more harm than good is coming of civilians having access to military-grade semi-automatics which can deal the kind of mass death instantly that we saw last week in Newtown, CT.

    The NRA's shrillness is because this challenges their political worldview which is now seriously out of joint with the rest of the country's reality.


    4 members found this post helpful.

  7. #27
    Join Date
    Feb. 25, 2012
    Location
    Montana
    Posts
    2,196

    Default

    Actually, no, Windsor, I would rather work on things that SAVE lives, have a meaningful impact. We do have evidence that 'bans" don't work well (hello war on drugs, prostitution, etc, and New York and CT when it comes to firearms). Criminals shockingly ignore the laws!! Why not focus on the real (to me) goal of reducing the chances that the wrong people will do damage with guns?


    1 members found this post helpful.

  8. #28
    Join Date
    Aug. 22, 2009
    Location
    Dumfries, VA
    Posts
    147

    Default

    In the wake of a monstrous crime like a madman's mass murder of defenseless women and children at the Newtown , Conn. , elementary school, the nation's attention is riveted on what could have been done to prevent such a massacre.

    Luckily, some years ago, two famed economists, William Landes at the University of Chicago and John Lott at Yale, conducted a massive study of multiple victim public shootings in the United States between 1977 and 1995 to see how various legal changes affected their frequency and death toll.

    Landes and Lott examined many of the very policies being proposed right now in response to the Connecticut massacre: waiting periods and background checks for guns, the death penalty and increased penalties for committing a crime with a gun.

    None of these policies had any effect on the frequency of, or carnage from, multiple-victim shootings. (I note that they did not look at reforming our lax mental health laws)
    Only one public policy has ever been shown to reduce the death rate from such crimes: concealed-carry laws.

    The effect of concealed-carry laws in deterring mass public shootings was even greater than the impact of such laws on the murder rate generally.
    Someone planning to commit a single murder in a concealed-carry state only has to weigh the odds of one person being armed. But a criminal planning to commit murder in a public place has to worry that anyone in the entire area might have a gun.

    You will notice that most multiple-victim shootings occur in "gun-free zones" - even within states that have concealed-carry laws: public schools, churches, Sikh temples, post offices, the movie theater where James Holmes committed mass murder, and the Portland, Ore., mall where a nut starting gunning down shoppers a few weeks ago.

    Guns were banned in all these places. Mass killers may be crazy, but they're not stupid.

    If the deterrent effect of concealed-carry laws seems surprising to you, that's because the media hide stories of armed citizens stopping mass shooters. At the Portland shooting, for example, no explanation was given for the amazing fact that the assailant managed to kill only two people in the mall during the busy Christmas season.

    It turns out, concealed-carry-holder Nick Meli hadn't noticed that the mall was a gun-free zone. He pointed his (otherwise legal) gun at the shooter as he paused to reload, and the next shot was the attempted mass murderer killing himself. (Meli aimed, but didn't shoot, because there were bystanders behind the shooter.)

    In a nonsense "study" going around the Internet right now, Mother Jones magazine claims to have produced its own study of all public shootings in the last 30 years and concludes: "In not a single case was the killing stopped by a civilian using a gun."

    This will come as a shock to people who know something about the subject.

    The magazine reaches its conclusion by simply excluding all cases where an armed civilian stopped the shooter: They looked only at public shootings where four or more people were killed, i.e., the ones where the shooter wasn't stopped.

    If we care about reducing the number of people killed in mass shootings, shouldn't we pay particular attention to the cases where the aspiring mass murderer was prevented from getting off more than a couple rounds?
    It would be like testing the effectiveness of weed killers, but refusing to consider any cases where the weeds died.

    In addition to the Portland mall case, here are a few more examples excluded by the Mother Jones methodology:
    - Mayan Palace Theater, San Antonio, Texas, this week: Jesus Manuel Garcia shoots at a movie theater, a police car and bystanders from the nearby China Garden restaurant; as he enters the movie theater, guns blazing, an armed off-duty cop shoots Garcia four times, stopping the attack. Total dead: Zero.
    - Winnemucca , Nev. , 2008: Ernesto Villagomez opens fire in a crowded restaurant; concealed carry permit-holder shoots him dead. Total dead: Two. (I'm excluding the shooters' deaths in these examples.)
    - Appalachian School of Law , 2002: Crazed immigrant shoots the dean and a professor, then begins shooting students; as he goes for more ammunition, two armed students point their guns at him, allowing a third to tackle him. Total dead: Three.
    - Santee , Calif. , 2001: Student begins shooting his classmates - as well as the "trained campus supervisor"; an off-duty cop who happened to be bringing his daughter to school that day points his gun at the shooter, holding him until more police arrive. Total dead: Two.
    - Pearl High School , Mississippi , 1997: After shooting several people at his high school, student heads for the junior high school; assistant principal Joel Myrick retrieves a .45 pistol from his car and points it at the gunman's head, ending the murder spree. Total dead: Two.
    - Edinboro , Pa. , 1998: A student shoots up a junior high school dance being held at a restaurant; restaurant owner pulls out his shotgun and stops the gunman. Total dead: One.

    By contrast, the shootings in gun-free zones invariably result in far higher casualty figures - Sikh temple, Oak Creek, Wis. (six dead); Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, Va. (32 dead); Columbine High School, Columbine, Colo. (12 dead); Amish school, Lancaster County, Pa. (five little girls killed); public school, Craighead County, Ark. (five killed, including four little girls).
    All these took place in gun-free zones, resulting in lots of people getting killed - and thereby warranting inclusion in the Mother Jones study.

    If what we care about is saving the lives of innocent human beings by reducing the number of mass public shootings and the deaths they cause, only one policy has ever been shown to work: concealed-carry laws. On the other hand, if what we care about is self-indulgent grandstanding, and to hell with dozens of innocent children being murdered in cold blood, try the other policies.

    NRA Life Member, Retired police officer, Concealed weapon permit.
    I carry.


    12 members found this post helpful.

  9. #29
    Join Date
    Apr. 3, 2006
    Location
    Spooner, WI
    Posts
    2,184

    Default

    I'm a gun owner, my husband is an avid sportsman. We have guns. Neither of us see a reason to have those assault type weapons available to ANYONE. They seem to be a fantasy weapon, where if an apocalypse happens you can play the role of Mad Max etc. Ban them. Take them off the market, along with their silly clips too.

    I on the other hand have zero interest in living that lifestyle. Scared, armed,etc. Blech! Spoiled American here could make do without many things but living in fear is not one of them.


    12 members found this post helpful.

  10. #30
    Join Date
    Feb. 25, 2012
    Location
    Montana
    Posts
    2,196

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kimball56 View Post
    In the wake of a monstrous crime like a madman's mass murder of defenseless women and children at the Newtown , Conn. , elementary school, the nation's attention is riveted on what could have been done to prevent such a massacre.

    Luckily, some years ago, two famed economists, William Landes at the University of Chicago and John Lott at Yale, conducted a massive study of multiple victim public shootings in the United States between 1977 and 1995 to see how various legal changes affected their frequency and death toll.

    Landes and Lott examined many of the very policies being proposed right now in response to the Connecticut massacre: waiting periods and background checks for guns, the death penalty and increased penalties for committing a crime with a gun.

    None of these policies had any effect on the frequency of, or carnage from, multiple-victim shootings. (I note that they did not look at reforming our lax mental health laws)
    Only one public policy has ever been shown to reduce the death rate from such crimes: concealed-carry laws.

    The effect of concealed-carry laws in deterring mass public shootings was even greater than the impact of such laws on the murder rate generally.
    Someone planning to commit a single murder in a concealed-carry state only has to weigh the odds of one person being armed. But a criminal planning to commit murder in a public place has to worry that anyone in the entire area might have a gun.

    You will notice that most multiple-victim shootings occur in "gun-free zones" - even within states that have concealed-carry laws: public schools, churches, Sikh temples, post offices, the movie theater where James Holmes committed mass murder, and the Portland, Ore., mall where a nut starting gunning down shoppers a few weeks ago.

    Guns were banned in all these places. Mass killers may be crazy, but they're not stupid.

    If the deterrent effect of concealed-carry laws seems surprising to you, that's because the media hide stories of armed citizens stopping mass shooters. At the Portland shooting, for example, no explanation was given for the amazing fact that the assailant managed to kill only two people in the mall during the busy Christmas season.

    It turns out, concealed-carry-holder Nick Meli hadn't noticed that the mall was a gun-free zone. He pointed his (otherwise legal) gun at the shooter as he paused to reload, and the next shot was the attempted mass murderer killing himself. (Meli aimed, but didn't shoot, because there were bystanders behind the shooter.)

    In a nonsense "study" going around the Internet right now, Mother Jones magazine claims to have produced its own study of all public shootings in the last 30 years and concludes: "In not a single case was the killing stopped by a civilian using a gun."

    This will come as a shock to people who know something about the subject.

    The magazine reaches its conclusion by simply excluding all cases where an armed civilian stopped the shooter: They looked only at public shootings where four or more people were killed, i.e., the ones where the shooter wasn't stopped.

    If we care about reducing the number of people killed in mass shootings, shouldn't we pay particular attention to the cases where the aspiring mass murderer was prevented from getting off more than a couple rounds?
    It would be like testing the effectiveness of weed killers, but refusing to consider any cases where the weeds died.

    In addition to the Portland mall case, here are a few more examples excluded by the Mother Jones methodology:
    - Mayan Palace Theater, San Antonio, Texas, this week: Jesus Manuel Garcia shoots at a movie theater, a police car and bystanders from the nearby China Garden restaurant; as he enters the movie theater, guns blazing, an armed off-duty cop shoots Garcia four times, stopping the attack. Total dead: Zero.
    - Winnemucca , Nev. , 2008: Ernesto Villagomez opens fire in a crowded restaurant; concealed carry permit-holder shoots him dead. Total dead: Two. (I'm excluding the shooters' deaths in these examples.)
    - Appalachian School of Law , 2002: Crazed immigrant shoots the dean and a professor, then begins shooting students; as he goes for more ammunition, two armed students point their guns at him, allowing a third to tackle him. Total dead: Three.
    - Santee , Calif. , 2001: Student begins shooting his classmates - as well as the "trained campus supervisor"; an off-duty cop who happened to be bringing his daughter to school that day points his gun at the shooter, holding him until more police arrive. Total dead: Two.
    - Pearl High School , Mississippi , 1997: After shooting several people at his high school, student heads for the junior high school; assistant principal Joel Myrick retrieves a .45 pistol from his car and points it at the gunman's head, ending the murder spree. Total dead: Two.
    - Edinboro , Pa. , 1998: A student shoots up a junior high school dance being held at a restaurant; restaurant owner pulls out his shotgun and stops the gunman. Total dead: One.

    By contrast, the shootings in gun-free zones invariably result in far higher casualty figures - Sikh temple, Oak Creek, Wis. (six dead); Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, Va. (32 dead); Columbine High School, Columbine, Colo. (12 dead); Amish school, Lancaster County, Pa. (five little girls killed); public school, Craighead County, Ark. (five killed, including four little girls).
    All these took place in gun-free zones, resulting in lots of people getting killed - and thereby warranting inclusion in the Mother Jones study.

    If what we care about is saving the lives of innocent human beings by reducing the number of mass public shootings and the deaths they cause, only one policy has ever been shown to work: concealed-carry laws. On the other hand, if what we care about is self-indulgent grandstanding, and to hell with dozens of innocent children being murdered in cold blood, try the other policies.

    NRA Life Member, Retired police officer, Concealed weapon permit.
    I carry.
    Two thumbs up there Kimball!!!


    2 members found this post helpful.

  11. #31
    Join Date
    Aug. 22, 2009
    Location
    Dumfries, VA
    Posts
    147

    Default

    In the wake of a monstrous crime like a madman's mass murder of defenseless women and children at the Newtown , Conn. , elementary school, the nation's attention is riveted on what could have been done to prevent such a massacre.

    Luckily, some years ago, two famed economists, William Landes at the University of Chicago and John Lott at Yale, conducted a massive study of multiple victim public shootings in the United States between 1977 and 1995 to see how various legal changes affected their frequency and death toll.

    Landes and Lott examined many of the very policies being proposed right now in response to the Connecticut massacre: waiting periods and background checks for guns, the death penalty and increased penalties for committing a crime with a gun.

    None of these policies had any effect on the frequency of, or carnage from, multiple-victim shootings. (I note that they did not look at reforming our lax mental health laws)

    Only one public policy has ever been shown to reduce the death rate from such crimes: concealed-carry laws.

    The effect of concealed-carry laws in deterring mass public shootings was even greater than the impact of such laws on the murder rate generally.
    Someone planning to commit a single murder in a concealed-carry state only has to weigh the odds of one person being armed. But a criminal planning to commit murder in a public place has to worry that anyone in the entire area might have a gun.

    You will notice that most multiple-victim shootings occur in "gun-free zones" - even within states that have concealed-carry laws: public schools, churches, Sikh temples, post offices, the movie theater where James Holmes committed mass murder, and the Portland, Ore., mall where a nut starting gunning down shoppers a few weeks ago.

    Guns were banned in all these places. Mass killers may be crazy, but they're not stupid.

    If the deterrent effect of concealed-carry laws seems surprising to you, that's because the media hide stories of armed citizens stopping mass shooters. At the Portland shooting, for example, no explanation was given for the amazing fact that the assailant managed to kill only two people in the mall during the busy Christmas season.

    It turns out, concealed-carry-holder Nick Meli hadn't noticed that the mall was a gun-free zone. He pointed his (otherwise legal) gun at the shooter as he paused to reload, and the next shot was the attempted mass murderer killing himself. (Meli aimed, but didn't shoot, because there were bystanders behind the shooter.)

    In a nonsense "study" going around the Internet right now, Mother Jones magazine claims to have produced its own study of all public shootings in the last 30 years and concludes: "In not a single case was the killing stopped by a civilian using a gun."

    This will come as a shock to people who know something about the subject.

    The magazine reaches its conclusion by simply excluding all cases where an armed civilian stopped the shooter: They looked only at public shootings where four or more people were killed, i.e., the ones where the shooter wasn't stopped.

    If we care about reducing the number of people killed in mass shootings, shouldn't we pay particular attention to the cases where the aspiring mass murderer was prevented from getting off more than a couple rounds?
    It would be like testing the effectiveness of weed killers, but refusing to consider any cases where the weeds died.

    In addition to the Portland mall case, here are a few more examples excluded by the Mother Jones methodology:
    - Mayan Palace Theater, San Antonio, Texas, this week: Jesus Manuel Garcia shoots at a movie theater, a police car and bystanders from the nearby China Garden restaurant; as he enters the movie theater, guns blazing, an armed off-duty cop shoots Garcia four times, stopping the attack. Total dead: Zero.
    - Winnemucca , Nev. , 2008: Ernesto Villagomez opens fire in a crowded restaurant; concealed carry permit-holder shoots him dead. Total dead: Two. (I'm excluding the shooters' deaths in these examples.)
    - Appalachian School of Law , 2002: Crazed immigrant shoots the dean and a professor, then begins shooting students; as he goes for more ammunition, two armed students point their guns at him, allowing a third to tackle him. Total dead: Three.
    - Santee , Calif. , 2001: Student begins shooting his classmates - as well as the "trained campus supervisor"; an off-duty cop who happened to be bringing his daughter to school that day points his gun at the shooter, holding him until more police arrive. Total dead: Two.
    - Pearl High School , Mississippi , 1997: After shooting several people at his high school, student heads for the junior high school; assistant principal Joel Myrick retrieves a .45 pistol from his car and points it at the gunman's head, ending the murder spree. Total dead: Two.
    - Edinboro , Pa. , 1998: A student shoots up a junior high school dance being held at a restaurant; restaurant owner pulls out his shotgun and stops the gunman. Total dead: One.

    By contrast, the shootings in gun-free zones invariably result in far higher casualty figures - Sikh temple, Oak Creek, Wis. (six dead); Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, Va. (32 dead); Columbine High School, Columbine, Colo. (12 dead); Amish school, Lancaster County, Pa. (five little girls killed); public school, Craighead County, Ark. (five killed, including four little girls).
    All these took place in gun-free zones, resulting in lots of people getting killed - and thereby warranting inclusion in the Mother Jones study.

    If what we care about is saving the lives of innocent human beings by reducing the number of mass public shootings and the deaths they cause, only one policy has ever been shown to work: concealed-carry laws. On the other hand, if what we care about is self-indulgent grandstanding, and to hell with dozens of innocent children being murdered in cold blood, try the other policies.

    NRA Life member, retired police officer, concealed weapon permit.
    I carry


    1 members found this post helpful.

  12. #32
    Join Date
    May. 5, 2006
    Posts
    2,733

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Larksmom View Post

    3 I do not think there were armed officers at Columbine until AFTER the shooting started. In fact the only place where there were guns, and they weren't where the shooting was-weren't allowed- was at Ft Hood.
    There was an armed cop at Columbine. He was the school resource officer, and I remember him being interviewed. He exchanged gun fire with one of the shooters, but was unable to actually hit him. I can't remember what the cop's name was. Grenider? Something like that. It has been a long time.

    I agree about the lack of responsibility shown by some who own guns. I don't think we'll ever really know how aware this Lanza guy's Mother was regarding his problems, but it seems very irresponsible of her to have guns in the house with him, given what we do know for sure.
    Sheilah


    2 members found this post helpful.

  13. #33
    Join Date
    Dec. 16, 2012
    Posts
    33

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Larksmom View Post
    1 I am a supporter of gun rights. I am NOT a member of any gun club, NRA or anything like that.
    2 With rights comes RESPONSIBILITY. Did that mother of the shooter have a RIGHT to have guns? Yes. Should she have shown RESPONSIBILITY in not having them in her house with a... damaged child? Hell NO.
    People these days are always screeching about their rights, but they never want to take responsibility for their actions.
    3 I do not think there were armed officers at Columbine until AFTER the shooting started. In fact the only place where there were guns, and they weren't where the shooting was-weren't allowed- was at Ft Hood. These shooters target places like GUN FREE ZONES because they know they will have no competition. Most of these mouth breathers shoot themselves when the real guns show up.
    As far as arming a cop or better, a trained soldier, screened of course, to walk around the schools, what a great use of resources! So many returning vets, with no jobs, this might be a way to kill two birds... [sorry I couldn't help it] They waste so much money on schools, they could do without an adminnistrator or two. It actually might generate some respect for the law if the kids got to know an actual policeman.
    Give the kids someone else to look up to. It wouldn't have to generate fear if you didn't make it so.

    Since all of these shooters have been mentally unbalanced, it is clear to me, we need to do more about the mental health system, than shriek about guns.
    Well said, Larksmom, but when it comes to dealing with these anti gunners, common sense comments like yours falls on deaf ears.


    1 members found this post helpful.

  14. #34
    Join Date
    Aug. 27, 2008
    Posts
    388

    Default

    I think so much of the gun fanatic arguments are absolutely ridiculous. More guns is the solution? We had an armed police officer at my school when I was there. One dude at the front door. If I am going to go kill people, I am killing him first and then all of our tax dollars were just wasted and an additional life is lost. I have a .38 and a .45. I am very knowledgable about my guns and am a fairly good shot. I don't use them though other than target shooting. I have no doubt that if I am surrounded by screaming and carnage and crazy the last thing I am going to think is to try and kill the crazy killer. And for the people who think all the teachers should be armed....Really? I am pretty sure your average elementary school teacher is not your typical gun range frequenter. It's just not consistent with the personality of someone who devotes their lives to teaching small children. I am sure there are exceptions but come on. We are 5% of the world population and own 50% of the guns. That's okay? There used to be school psychologists and guidance counselors in all schools. These have been substantially cut in most places because of the cost. Maybe some of these mentally disturbed kids would have gotten help way before they decided to kill if those resources were still there. There is absolutely no logical need for high powered assault weapons created to kill multiple people at one time. There are things that can be done without banning all guns. Are you going to eliminate all violence, no, but even if one life is saved isn't that worth it?


    7 members found this post helpful.

  15. #35
    Join Date
    Apr. 3, 2006
    Location
    Spooner, WI
    Posts
    2,184

    Default

    Here is a sample of the mind set I see where I live. This was an actual Bushmaster website. It has since been taken down. Scroll down and enjoy.

    http://www.buzzfeed.com/scott/bushma...-card-campaign


    2 members found this post helpful.

  16. #36
    Join Date
    Feb. 25, 2012
    Location
    Montana
    Posts
    2,196

    Default

    Well, I know absolutely nothing about Adam Lanza, let alone his mother, but I can say that I bet many women killed by their domestic partners did not acknowledge how much danger they were in. I would bet that Ms. Lanza clearly did not realize, or was in denial about, her own level of risk. I cannot imagine being a parent and having to admit to myself that my kid was that risky. And families have indeed done this-turned in members (Kazinsky) who were clearly dangerous. But I am interested in how this would work, a mom or dad takes their child in for help, the counselor agrees they are risky, then says to the parent, you should not have firearms, etc in the house. and if for some reason one or the other disagrees, then what? Remove the child from the house? Where would we put them? Would we send police to forcibly remove the firearms? For people interested in "freedom" that's a lot of government involvement! I'm not saying, BTW, that I am by any means opposed to "more mental health" (I am!! And for sure we need more availability out here!!!) but am definitely interested in what direction this might take.



  17. #37
    Join Date
    Dec. 16, 2012
    Posts
    33

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by stolen virtue View Post
    Nothing feels more "free" than living under the scope of "good guy" snipers at every corner...

    Really, this idea that we all must carry guns to be protected is insanity.
    Good Heavens! No one is advocating all carrying guns. But what is being said is that those who chose to do so legally shouldn't be told they can't! Oh, by the way, God bless our our troops, especially our snipers!


    1 members found this post helpful.

  18. #38
    Join Date
    Oct. 12, 2001
    Location
    Center of the Universe
    Posts
    6,901

    Default

    I'm sick to death of all of these macho gun wavers who dream of being the ones to save the day when a shooter comes to their neighborhood.
    THESE people are the ones who scare me the most- how can we be safe when there are psychos walking around amongst us, with concealed weapons, eagerly looking for a chance to pull that gun out and blow someone away?
    we need to stop these people before they start blowing away kids playing with water pistols and innocent bystanders.
    FEWER weapons, not more. NO concealed weapons. Strict controls on how guns can be stored and transported- unloaded, locked up at all times.

    Having "armed guards" may actually backfire- if you're planning to shoot em up, and you know there is an armed guard, you'll come in prepared with extra-heavy weaponry and armor, or perhaps just skip straight to the bombs. Arms-races always escalate. You don't want to start an arms race, you want to stop them.


    4 members found this post helpful.

  19. #39
    Join Date
    Jun. 27, 2005
    Location
    KY
    Posts
    4,519

    Default

    I also believe we should bring back the draft.

    Those teenage boys who love their "shoot 'em" computer games so much, would hopefully get some discipline drills to go along with that mentality.

    A friend of mine's grandson at age six is running around with a plastic army rifle playing 'war on the Nazis'.

    Where is that coming from???

    ************************
    \"Horses lend us the wings we lack\"



  20. #40
    Join Date
    Jan. 26, 2006
    Location
    Fort Worth, Texas
    Posts
    4,042

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by IdahoRider View Post
    There was an armed cop at Columbine. He was the school resource officer, and I remember him being interviewed. He exchanged gun fire with one of the shooters, but was unable to actually hit him.
    .... in the opening moments of the Columbine massacre Neil Gardner was not wearing his prescription eyeglasses but was instead wearing non-prescription sunglasses



Similar Threads

  1. USEF Armed Forces Attire
    By devildogtigress in forum Dressage
    Replies: 34
    Last Post: Feb. 4, 2012, 05:39 PM
  2. Well Armed
    By equinedriver in forum Racing
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: Nov. 17, 2011, 01:08 PM
  3. armed, mounted, and wired.
    By charismaryllis in forum Off Course
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: Aug. 12, 2011, 05:10 PM
  4. Warning to all Foxhunters! Foxes are now armed!
    By spotnnotfarm in forum Off Course
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: Jan. 15, 2011, 12:26 PM
  5. Well Armed in TX - Anyone Connected?
    By Zevida in forum Racing
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: Oct. 22, 2009, 05:11 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •