Mock

Why do people assume that just because a person has a loaded firearm on them they will go crazy and start shooting at the drop of a hat? I have ben in several fistfights and had a gun on me during it, no one got shot, no guns were pulled. I dont understand why people think guns turn sane people crazy.

I don't really think a gun would make a rational person go k-nuts but I don't necessarily think all teachers are 100% sane either.

My daughter had a teacher, since fired, that went ballistic in class and called a girl a whore.

(01-29-2013, 12:37 PM)username Wrote: [ -> ]I don't really think a gun would make a rational person go k-nuts but I don't necessarily think all teachers are 100% sane either.

My daughter had a teacher, since fired, that went ballistic in class and called a girl a whore.

That I agree with. Just like I dont feel every citizen should carry a firearm I dont feel every teacher should either. I feel the teacher should go through testing just like everyone else.
If the person can pass the federal background check, the firearm laws test and marksmanship testing just like I had to, I feel they should be allowed to carry a firearm and protect our children with it.

This video is worth the 10 minutes of your time to watch.
One portion I thought was nice to know is about the so called 40% of gun sales are done at a gunshow with no background check. While I try to know as much about this topic as I can, I did not know that statistic came from a time when background checks were not required at all.
I all sowas unaware that only 1.9% of firearms used in a crime were purchased at a gunshow.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wi6gZU01yF8

Liberals are to smart to be cluttered with stuff like the truth.

OK, So who let the fuking guy with a Clue in the room?

The following article appeared in the January 1, 1992 Los Angeles Times.

This is the story you saw on the evening news:
At lunch hour on Wednesday, Oct. 16, George Jo Hennard of Belton, Tex. smashed his Ford pickup through the plate glass doors of Luby's cafeteria in Killeen, injuring some patrons immediately. While other patrons rushed toward the truck believing the driver was a heart-attack victim, Hennard calmly climbed out of his pickup, took out two 9-millimeter semi-automatic pistols, and started shooting people in the cafeteria's serving line.

Hennard continued shooting for 10 minutes, reloading five times. One of his pistols jammed repeatedly, causing him to discard it. There would have been plenty of opportunity for any of the cafeteria's customers or employees to return fire. None did because none of them were armed. Texas law forbids private citizens from carrying firearms out of their home or business. Luby's employee's manual forbids employees from carrying firearms.

Police officers were inside Luby's within minutes. But before they were able to corner Hennard in the cafeteria's restroom, where he turned his gun fatally on himself, Hennard had killed 15 women and 8 men, wounded 19 and caused at least five more to be injured attempting to flee.

The Killeen massacre was ready-made excitement for the media: a madman with a gun, lots of gruesome pictures. CBS News devoted an entire "48 Hours" Dan Rather report to it. Sarah Brady of Handgun Control Inc. capitalized on it in a nationally published column to call Congress cowardly for voting down more stringent gun laws the next day.
Now here's a story you probably didn't see:
Late at night on Tuesday, December 17, two men armed with recently-stolen pistols herded 20 customers and employees of a Shoney's restaurant in Anniston, Ala., into the walk-in refrigerator, and locked it. Continuing to hold the manager at gunpoint, the men began robbing the restaurant.

Then one of the robbers found a customer who had hidden under a table and pulled a gun on him. The customer, Thomas Glenn Terry, legally armed with a .45 semi-automatic pistol, fired five shots into that robber's chest and abdomen, killing him instantly.
The other robber, who was holding the manager at gunpoint, opened fire on Terry and grazed him. Terry returned fire, hitting the second robber several times and wounding him critically.

The robbery attempt was over. The Shoney's customers and employees were freed. No one else was hurt.
Because Terry was armed, and used his gun to stop two armed robbers who had taken a restaurant full of people hostage, there was no drawn-out crisis, no massacre, no victims' families for Dan Rather to interview. Consequently, the story hasn't received much coverage.

Among those who rely on national news media for their view of the country, the bloody image of Luby's Cafeteria is available to lend the unchallenged impression that guns in private hands serve only to kill innocent people. The picture of 20 hostages walking out of Shoney's refrigerator unharmed, because a private citizen was armed that night, is not.

As we celebrate the bicentennial of the Bill of Rights, it's worth noting that the Framers wrote the Second Amendment so the people's defense would be in our own hands, and we wouldn't have to rely on a "standing army" or "select militia" for our security. Though no police departments existed in America then, there's no historical doubt that the Framers had considered centralized public defense, and considered it not merely ineffective, but itself dangerous to public safety. Recent vigilante-type police attacks, such as the beating of Rodney King, lend credence.

Yet, it's fashionable to relegate constitutional protections to the dustbin of history. Judges sworn to defend the Constitution ignore its clear provisions, as do legislators. Virtually every major organ of society - both political parties, the media, the American Bar Assn., the ACLU - urges them to do so.

Today's "consensus reality" asserts that private firearms play no effective role in the civic defense, and that firearms must be restricted to reduce crime. The media repeat these assertions as a catechism, and treat those who challenge them as heretics.
Yet, we have before us an experiment showing us alternative outcomes. In one case, we have a restaurant full of unarmed people who rely on the police to save them. The result is 23 innocent lives lost, and an equivalent number wounded. In the second case, we have one armed citizen on the scene and not one innocent life lost.
How can the choice our society needs to make be any clearer?

It's time to rid ourselves of the misbegotten idea that public safety can be achieved by unilateral disarmament of the honest citizen, and realize that the price of public safety is, like liberty, eternal vigilance. We can tire ourselves in futile debates on how to keep guns out of the wrong hands. Or we can decide that innocent lives deserve better than to be cut short, if only we, as a society, will take upon ourselves the civic responsibility of defending our fellow citizens, as Thomas Glenn Terry did in Alabama.
My account of Thomas Glenn Terry's actions in this article was based on an Alabama newspaper account. I later interviewed Terry for a weekly radio program I was hosting and discovered that the account was mistaken on several points.
Postal clerk Terry was finishing a late-night dinner with his wife when the robbers came in and took over the restaurant. Terry hid his .45 Colt Government Model under his sweater, not seeing any immediate opportunity to use it. Terry's wife was captured with the other customers and herded off to the cooler, where one of the robbers proceeded to collect wallets and jewelry.

Terry did not hide under a table; he had separated himself from the other customers and managed to get to a back door in the Shoney's to see if it was open so he could escape and call the police. The door was chained shut. At that point one of the robbers discovered him and when the robber drew on him, Terry pulled his own handgun from under his sweater and returned fire, incapacitating this robber, who ultimately survived. The second robber heard the exchange of gunfire and also drew on Terry; it was the gun fight between Terry and this second robber which resulted in the robber running out to the parking lot, where he died from his wounds. It was at this point that Terry told the store manager to phone the police, informing them that an armed customer was present; Terry then proceeded to the cooler and released his wife and the other customers.

Both robbers whom Terry shot had previous armed robberies on their record, and one had murdered a motel clerk just a few days earlier. A third robber escaped as soon as Terry exchanged gunfire with the first robber.

The only national media outlet to cover this incident as news, just two months after the Killeen restaurant massacre, was the Christian Science Monitor. -JNS


There are many more like this that nobody sees because it does not fit the anti-gun mentality.

Here is a more recent one 2007 that is relevent also.

And another

I don't have the inclination to weed through all the minutia and will simply (and, lazily) wait for SIXFOOTERsez to wade through it all, come up with his (intelligent and well thought-out) opinion, express it and in my mind, copy/paste and move on.

Armed guards does work.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/31...d=webmail1

1/31/13

ATLANTA — A student opened fire at his middle school Thursday afternoon, wounding a 14-year-old in the neck before an armed officer working at the school was able to get the gun away, police said.

Multiple shots were fired in the courtyard of Price Middle School just south of downtown about 1:50 p.m. and the one boy was hit, Atlanta Police Chief George Turner said. In the aftermath, a teacher received minor cuts, he said.

The wounded boy was taken "alert, conscious and breathing" to Grady Memorial Hospital, said police spokesman Carlos Campos. Grady Heath System Spokeswoman Denise Simpson said the teen had been discharged from the hospital Thursday night. Campos said charges against the shooter were pending.

Police swarmed the school of about 400 students after reports of the shooting while a crowd of anxious parents gathered in the streets, awaiting word on their children. Students were kept at the locked-down school for more than two hours before being dismissed.

Investigators believe the shooting was not random and that something occurred between the two students that may have led to it.

Schools Superintendent Erroll Davis said the school does have metal detectors.

"The obvious question is how did this get past a metal detector?" Davis asked about the gun. "That's something we do not know yet."

The armed resource officer who took the gun away was off-duty and at the school, but police didn't release details on him or whether he is regularly at Price. Since 20 children and six adults were shot to death at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Connecticut in December, calls for armed officers in every school have resonated across the country.

Agreed Duch. I doubt that the major media outlets will talk about this much. If they do it will be just a mention, it wont get the coverage that other stories gets.

I've stated here before that a police officer at a school is the only real solution.

I no longer believe arming teachers is realistic. A teacher shouldn't have to go through police officer training in order to teach.

Maybe in very special circumstances a principal could have a gun locked away. Don't know for sure about that.

But a police officer at a school (or even rotating schools) seems reasonable. Maybe even in plain clothes so any potential perps don't know they're there (kind of like an air marshal?).

Glad to read this story out of Atlanta.

Link for Georgia story. bang bang

This Atlanta story is already going away.

In the meantime, Chicago remains a battle zone and should be getting banner coverage... but is met with mediocre coverage at best.

Such hypocrisy.

(02-01-2013, 10:59 AM)Midwest Spy Wrote: [ -> ]I've stated here before that a police officer at a school is the only real solution.

I no longer believe arming teachers is realistic. A teacher shouldn't have to go through police officer training in order to teach.

Maybe in very special circumstances a principal could have a gun locked away. Don't know for sure about that.

But a police officer at a school (or even rotating schools) seems reasonable. Maybe even in plain clothes so any potential perps don't know they're there (kind of like an air marshal?).

Glad to read this story out of Atlanta.

You are right, it should not be a requirement to be trained in firearms to teach. However it also should not be forbidden. If the teacher WANTS to do the training on their own time, they should be allowed to. There are many firearm instructors around the country right now that are teaching teachers for free. I think that should be a option that is not taken off the table.

(02-01-2013, 12:13 PM)F.U. Dont ask again Wrote: [ -> ]

(02-01-2013, 10:59 AM)Midwest Spy Wrote: [ -> ]I've stated here before that a police officer at a school is the only real solution.

I no longer believe arming teachers is realistic. A teacher shouldn't have to go through police officer training in order to teach.

Maybe in very special circumstances a principal could have a gun locked away. Don't know for sure about that.

But a police officer at a school (or even rotating schools) seems reasonable. Maybe even in plain clothes so any potential perps don't know they're there (kind of like an air marshal?).

Glad to read this story out of Atlanta.

You are right, it should not be a requirement to be trained in firearms to teach. However it also should not be forbidden. If the teacher WANTS to do the training on their own time, they should be allowed to. There are many firearm instructors around the country right now that are teaching teachers for free. I think that should be a option that is not taken off the table.

You know, I agree with you that a teacher who's had training and feels confident/comfortable being armed at school would probably be a good thing.

I don't think the general public will ever go for having more and more firearms at schools, though.

@JimBone... To me, inner city violence will never be 'my' problem, unfortunately. The general consensus being 'as long as the gang bangers/thugs keep it confined to their areas, the rest of us won't care much. I believe that's reality.

I don't know if you're just trying to be difficult, but I think what most reasonable people are trying to achieve in this latest round of gun control debate, is to eliminate crazy people from shooting up public places, particularly elementary schools.

The image of 6 year olds being slaughtered in their classroom won't soon go away.

Is it fair that most care more about suburban children than children in the ghetto?

I honestly don't care about banning any sort of weapons IF there's an alternative that prevents people from shooting us up in public.

I'm not okay with 'I guess you just have to HOPE you're not the next random victim of a madman.'