The Texas shooting shows the futility of arming teachers

Do you have a greencard and a work permit?

 

Tell your Repub representatives you want them to vote for the AWB Bill of 2013, or one similar to it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_weapons_legislation_in_the_United_States

 

Maybe if you're insane you should check yourself into a hospitol. Maybe there 99.999% of us who are not have no problems with our guns, and lumping us in with them is the apex of stupidity.

 

Uh, no. The limits are yelling "fire" in a crowded structure, and things like that. There is no law saying someone can't have an opinion that causes them to get arrested. Welcome to tyranny.

 

The 99% don't matter, the 1% just kill more kids so you can have guns you don't need.

 

Nonsense. Before the law took over in the 18th century if someone went to far you resorted to violence.

 

Just giving you some life saving advice.

 

But not a free country. The primary reason the 1A exists is to protect unpopular and/or offensive speech. We wouldn't even need it if it was only to protect the PC party line.

 

OK, I'm gonna call you out on that. How do you suggest we fix that? Medical records are privileged, and a physican can't even confirm or deny if Person X is even a patient. The only exception is if a medical professional believes that one of their patients is an imminent threat to themselves or others. So, short of making medical records public record, how do we fix that problem.

Please be specific.

 

But- You can't make laws that remove guns from the people who do harm with guns; only from their victims. THAT does harm to them.
We outlawed booze; created a massive mob industry.
We declared war on drugs, pushed the prices sky high and financed the most profitable drug cartels ever- who are still thriving, and more of the deadliest drugs enter the US than ever before.
Try to ban guns and the first thing is that you violate the second amendment to the US Constitution- and the second thing is that you create a huge black market in guns just like in drugs, and honest people will wind up buying black market guns rather than be unprotected by an impotent government.
In short- it no only won't work, it will make things worse.

You ignore what I said- that every gun owner I've ever discussed this with is in favor of severe penalties for criminal use of guns. Far more that exist now.
You're in the group that thinks arresting the car instead of the drunk driver will save lives..... Which to me, says you have zero comprehension of the issue.
Guns can kill people Guns can defend people. And the cops are never there at the moment defense is needed.

 

Thanks for playing, but that won't do squat. The most deadly school mass shooting in US history remains the VA Tech one, that was perpetrated by some nutjob with 2 pistols, one of which is considered the lowest powered firearm that money can buy. If you ban low powered rifles, which is what a .223 is, and the round fired by an AR-15 or copycat, compared to other rifles, would be shooters would just use higher powered rifles or a handgun or two.

And since what separates an "assault rifle" from one that isn't is simple cosmetics, gunmakers can just alter the cosmetics, just as they did during the last federal AWB. I'd also point out that CA (and other places) have laws against "assault weapons" and yet they keep showing up at mass shootings, whether at schools or elsewhere.

I'm not done, though.

First, there is no such thing as an "assault weapon". It is a term made up by leftist politicians, or the press, or both in an effort to stigmatize weapons based on nothing more than their appearance. The real term is "assault rifle", and in order to carry that label, it has to be a select fire weapon. In case you don't know what that means, it means more than one bullet per trigger pull. The US Army has mostly 3-round bursts on their M-16s because they found that in fully automatic mode, the rifles become very difficult to control, so a whole lot of rounds get wasted shooting at the sky, or ceiling if indoors. Which is why I said in an earlier post that we might be better off if these mass shooters actually had automatic weapons, because they'd be putting more holes in ceilings than in people.

Lastly, not so recent estimates are that there are at least 15,000,000 AR-15s (or clones, it has to be Colt branded to be a real AR-15) in circulation in the US, and that number is at least 5-7 years old, possibly older, meaning it could easily be double that by now. What do you plan to do about those?

 

I don't think they should arm teachers. I do think security needs to step up

 

You know jackssshit.

A .223 is "low powered"....only if you're comparing it to a larger caliber. It was designed for weight reduction and increased capacity, combined with its 7 in 1 twist, it has greater accuracy than other similar military weapons. Its hypersonic velocity has a nasty habit of cavitating through flesh. I still remember vividly my photography teacher, a Vietnam Marine, commenting about how easy the M-16 was at decapitating Viet Cong heads at 25 yards.

 

None of your business.

 

We don't value the right to call someone a ******.

 

I'm not going back down that rabbit hole, experience has taught me you wont allow any limitation on gun ownership, any checks, any restrictions, any safety devices...
Hence my position of supporting your view that 19 kids is a small price to pay for having a lovely AR15.

 

Yes you can, many countries have. You don't want to, your guns are more precious than your kids.
That's your freedom, I no longer question it, I just point it out.

 

You should rename your thread to "Texas shooting shows the futility of depending on police for protection"

@Arkanis

 

There are very few if any centerfire rifle rounds that are not hypersonic velocity. How many centerfire rounds of a lower caliber than 223 are you aware of for a rifle chambering?

There are plenty of rifles that are more accurate out to a greater distance.

 

At least I know how to spell "jackshit".

No sh*t, sherlock. What the hell else would we be comparing it to, a BB gun?? Most other rifles are more powerful than an AR-15 for the very reason that most rifles have larger calibers, and therefore larger, more massive bullets. Since F=ma the force of the round is it's MASS times it's ACCELLERATION, which in the case of hitting a body is negative, but that it a mathematical quirk that does not affect the amount of impact force it imparts on a human body. As for twist rates, yes, the Army's very first M-16s were designed with a 1:7, but that was to provide greater accuracy to it's heavier and tracer rounds. What's best is based on bullet mass, and by far the most popular is the 55 grain, which is better in a 1:9, which is what my AR is. And unless you go out of your way to get something different, that's probably what most ARs have, though they're available anywhere from 7 to 12. But purely for accuracy based on the mass of the bullet, as each kind has a perfect match. 55 grain, for example, is best used with a 1:9. Which is why I use 55 gr.

PS... There is no such thing as a "hypersonic" rifle round. Rifle rounds, all of them to my knowledge except perhaps a .22lr are SUPERsonic, and come out of the barrel at roughly 3,000 fps, which is faster than the speed of sound, and the reason a rifle is so much louder than a pistol, because there is a sonic boom. But that's nothing special wrt the AR, it's true of all long guns, with the exception I listed above.

Handguns, OTOH, come out at about 1,000-1,400 fpm, and are subsonic. But take note that I didn't say they were not lethal, they certainly are and certainly can be. But at a distance, they're more likely to wound, and a wounded soldier slows down an enemy advance more than a dead one does.
?

 

Because you're not a free country, so you're not used to accepting such things as a given.

 

What you point out is that you understand nothing about this.

Guns don't fire themselves. People point them and pull triggers. That is what you should fear- people willing to commit violence, and if you actually gave a rat's ass about family, you would be supporting ways to eliminate or remove such people from society.

If guns had never been invented, bow and arrows would be the top personal weapon. Then you would be ranting about them. If they had not been invented, the knife or sword would be your the evil. If they had not been invented, it would be the club or rock.

One of the worlds worst serial killings took the life of over 1,000 babies- and while guns were readily available, none were shot. You do not make a valid or intelligent argument.
Go away.

 

Who determines how many guns a person "needs"? I have two guns. One was my grandfathers and handed down. One was my fathers that he bought in the 1960s. A 1946 British 303.

On the other hand I have a brother in law who is an avid hunter.

He owns more than 60 guns. All of which he has a perfectly legitimate use for.

My son in law has an AR-15 that he uses for deer hunting. I've fired it myself

 

I know a college professor (now retired) who discretely carried a gun to his university every day. He had better than average physical fitness for a man his age and a proper mental attitude. He loved teaching. He had a concealed weapons permit, but carrying the gun on campus was against university rules. Had it ever been found out, he would have been fired. He went to a firearms range and practiced with it monthly or so.

He told me that he carried the weapon because, if the worst should happen, it gave him a chance to protect himself and his students. He didn’t think of it as a guarantee, but a chance.

I also know a university graduate (now in a professional field) who had a concealed weapons permit who did the same thing for the same reason - to give him a better chance than just luck. He was a veteran and well trained.

As a trained professional in the use of firearms myself, I know that if you give me a person who has reasonable physical fitness and a proper mental attitude, they could be trained up into a safe and competent shooter in about 2 weeks. I would want them to have at least twice yearly refresher training, each session for about 2 days.

Now this is not the answer. In my opinion, arming teachers does not address the root problems. It does not address the question of why these mass shootings happen. That is a whole other topic, and it is the problem we should be trying to identify and solve.

Carrying concealed weapons is not for everyone. It is not for all teachers. But for those who are suited for it, there is no harm in it, and it would at least give them a chance at stopping a school shooter that they wouldn’t otherwise have. For those who are suited for it, it’s better than being defenseless.

So for these reasons, I support the idea if it is executed well (voluntary, mental/physical fitness, and thorough and ongoing training). For those teachers, it would give them a better chance of stopping a shooter and a better chance of protecting their students.

Doing this is a form of “target hardening”, but it doesn’t address why this happens in the first place. That is real question. It is the difficult question. But if we hope to really stop these mass shootings, we must address it. If we don’t, we will, inevitably, waste our time arguing over gun control issues that go nowhere and which accomplish nothing … like we see in this thread and in every thread about guns and in the national debate.

Seth

 

We're free from school shootings.