(02-22-2018 04:38 PM)Claw Wrote:  

(02-22-2018 04:34 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(02-22-2018 03:58 PM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(02-22-2018 03:28 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(02-22-2018 03:16 PM)Claw Wrote:  I believe my kid went through a metal detector every day.

And that won't stop a shooter who walks in firing...nor would it stop someone from calling in a bomb threat and picking off people as they leave the building.

So, you oppose anything anyone else suggests, what’s your “solution” here?
Put a “guard” of some sort in the school-“we can’t afford that! Wed have to raise taxes!

Secure the building-they’ll just call in a bomb threat and kill them as they leave!

Uhhhh, ok. So, I guess your answer is to simply do nothing.

We have people searching for some reasonable solutions, and NONE will be foolproof, NONE will be 100%.

So, that means do nothing.

Unless of course it means trampling and abridging the rights of millions of law abiding citizens.

Do I have that about right?

No...as usual...you're being ridiculously obtuse.

As I've said many times...the only real solution is a total ban on guns. And that ain't happening, nor am I advocating for it.

I'm fine with school districts putting up barriers at entrances and even hiring armed forces if they so choose. I just don't want it mandated nationally and perhaps not even on a state level mandate.

I will never be in favor of arming teachers. Teachers are not law enforcement, nor should they be. They have a hard enough time just teaching.

I agree that solutions should be local.

However, I am sure there are teachers who could be armed. I wouldn't want to force it, but there are thousands of teachers. Some are probably quite capable. Some may even be policemen.

Don't disagree. But the problem there is that when actual law enforcement shows up, how do they know who the actual shooter is.

(02-22-2018 03:36 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(02-22-2018 03:11 PM)Mr_XcentricK Wrote:  AR-15s were not available in the 50s either

So?

Had it been would the 50s have been different?

(02-22-2018 03:39 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(02-22-2018 03:11 PM)Mr_XcentricK Wrote:  AR-15s were not available in the 50s either

Several Semi-automatic rifles were available in the 50's.

SKS
M14 (semiauto for civilian use)
Baretta BM59 (semiauto for civilian use)
and several others.

Semi-automatic shotguns were also readily available.

What we didn't have in the 50's was rampant illegal drug use, millions of people on anti-depressants and anxiety medicine, and scores of fatherless homes, just to name a few.

Society was also far from perfect at that time. Rush is romanticizing the past.

(02-22-2018 03:43 PM)JTiger Wrote:  

(02-22-2018 03:11 PM)Mr_XcentricK Wrote:  AR-15s were not available in the 50s either

Virginia Tech shooting was with handguns, IIRC

You don't need an AR style rifle to inflict a lot of damage, just evil in your heart

I am not arguing that other weapons can not be used by it does seem to be the weapon of choice of lately

(02-22-2018 03:45 PM)GeorgeBorkFan Wrote:  

(02-22-2018 03:11 PM)Mr_XcentricK Wrote:  AR-15s were not available in the 50s either

The Colt was available for civilian purchase in 1963.

not the 50's

(02-22-2018 04:56 PM)Mr_XcentricK Wrote:  

(02-22-2018 03:36 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(02-22-2018 03:11 PM)Mr_XcentricK Wrote:  AR-15s were not available in the 50s either

So?

Had it been would the 50s have been different?

Hard to say.

But if someone in the 1950's had desired to shoot up a school all they had to do was order a SKS out of the back of a magazine and the US Postal Service would have delivered it to them at home.

Or went to the local hardware store and bought a surplus M1 Garand, a new Browning A5 shotgun, or a 1911 .45 handgun.

(02-22-2018 04:58 PM)Mr_XcentricK Wrote:  

(02-22-2018 03:39 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(02-22-2018 03:11 PM)Mr_XcentricK Wrote:  AR-15s were not available in the 50s either

Several Semi-automatic rifles were available in the 50's.

SKS
M14 (semiauto for civilian use)
Baretta BM59 (semiauto for civilian use)
and several others.

Semi-automatic shotguns were also readily available.

What we didn't have in the 50's was rampant illegal drug use, millions of people on anti-depressants and anxiety medicine, and scores of fatherless homes, just to name a few.

Society was also far from perfect at that time. Rush is romanticizing the past.

Society being far from perfect has nothing to do with the fact that there were semi-automatic weapons available in the 50's. As imperfect as they were, the firearms were available and schools were far more accessible. Safe to say the firearm isn't theproblem

(02-22-2018 03:39 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(02-22-2018 03:11 PM)Mr_XcentricK Wrote:  AR-15s were not available in the 50s either

Several Semi-automatic rifles were available in the 50's.

SKS
M14 (semiauto for civilian use)
Baretta BM59 (semiauto for civilian use)
and several others.

Semi-automatic shotguns were also readily available.

What we didn't have in the 50's was rampant illegal drug use, millions of people on anti-depressants and anxiety medicine, and scores of fatherless homes, just to name a few.

Most people were unaware or unwilling to purchase them. There was a shooting in CA in the 80s that put them on the map so to speak. Also contribute was the drug war and the citizens feeling the police either unwilling or unable to protect them.

(02-22-2018 05:05 PM)Mr_XcentricK Wrote:  

(02-22-2018 03:39 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(02-22-2018 03:11 PM)Mr_XcentricK Wrote:  AR-15s were not available in the 50s either

Several Semi-automatic rifles were available in the 50's.

SKS
M14 (semiauto for civilian use)
Baretta BM59 (semiauto for civilian use)
and several others.

Semi-automatic shotguns were also readily available.

What we didn't have in the 50's was rampant illegal drug use, millions of people on anti-depressants and anxiety medicine, and scores of fatherless homes, just to name a few.

Most people were unaware or unwilling to purchase them. There was a shooting in CA in the 80s that put them on the map so to speak. Also contribute was the drug war and the citizens feeling the police either unwilling or unable to protect them.

Link?

(02-22-2018 05:05 PM)Mr_XcentricK Wrote:  

(02-22-2018 03:39 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(02-22-2018 03:11 PM)Mr_XcentricK Wrote:  AR-15s were not available in the 50s either

Several Semi-automatic rifles were available in the 50's.

SKS
M14 (semiauto for civilian use)
Baretta BM59 (semiauto for civilian use)
and several others.

Semi-automatic shotguns were also readily available.

What we didn't have in the 50's was rampant illegal drug use, millions of people on anti-depressants and anxiety medicine, and scores of fatherless homes, just to name a few.

Most people were unaware or unwilling to purchase them. There was a shooting in CA in the 80s that put them on the map so to speak. Also contribute was the drug war and the citizens feeling the police either unwilling or unable to protect them.

Yeah gonna need to see a link on this one.

(02-22-2018 04:34 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(02-22-2018 03:58 PM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(02-22-2018 03:28 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(02-22-2018 03:16 PM)Claw Wrote:  I believe my kid went through a metal detector every day.

And that won't stop a shooter who walks in firing...nor would it stop someone from calling in a bomb threat and picking off people as they leave the building.

So, you oppose anything anyone else suggests, what’s your “solution” here?
Put a “guard” of some sort in the school-“we can’t afford that! Wed have to raise taxes!

Secure the building-they’ll just call in a bomb threat and kill them as they leave!

Uhhhh, ok. So, I guess your answer is to simply do nothing.

We have people searching for some reasonable solutions, and NONE will be foolproof, NONE will be 100%.

So, that means do nothing.

Unless of course it means trampling and abridging the rights of millions of law abiding citizens.

Do I have that about right?

No...as usual...you're being ridiculously obtuse.

As I've said many times...the only real solution is a total ban on guns. And that ain't happening, nor am I advocating for it.

I'm fine with school districts putting up barriers at entrances and even hiring armed forces if they so choose. I just don't want it mandated nationally and perhaps not even on a state level mandate.

I will never be in favor of arming teachers. Teachers are not law enforcement, nor should they be. They have a hard enough time just teaching.

Thanks for the personal attack right out of the gate, typical.

I’ve never been in favor of “arming teachers”, but I do know Asst football Coach Spears, the former career Marine and then ATF agent could handle himself if one of these cowards shows up at our HS.

And if it’s NOT mandated by one entity or another (not a national mandate, no) where do you think the next nut shows up?

Then we’re right back to this place, doing all this again.

Thus far, this a conversation, a discussion. Poo-pooing every idea out of the box cause they can’t be 100%, solves nothing, cuz that will never be the case under ANY scenario, total gun confiscation included.

I’ve offered my thoughts on the topic probably a dozen times by now, based on what we do in our County system. 60,000 Students.

NO idea why that can’t be done near everywhere, all localities have Cops.

(02-22-2018 05:00 PM)Mr_XcentricK Wrote:  

(02-22-2018 03:45 PM)GeorgeBorkFan Wrote:  

(02-22-2018 03:11 PM)Mr_XcentricK Wrote:  AR-15s were not available in the 50s either

The Colt was available for civilian purchase in 1963.

not the 50's

The context for the discussion is the 50s and the 60s. Your splitting hairs, and focusing on the 50s is immaterial. This has been available for fifty years.

(02-22-2018 04:42 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(02-22-2018 04:38 PM)Claw Wrote:  I agree that solutions should be local.

However, I am sure there are teachers who could be armed. I wouldn't want to force it, but there are thousands of teachers. Some are probably quite capable. Some may even be policemen.

Don't disagree. But the problem there is that when actual law enforcement shows up, how do they know who the actual shooter is.

The teacher lays down their weapon. How does it work for a normal concealed carry situation? How is this any different (in this context)?

I'm not for arming teachers. But if a teacher is licensed for concealed carry, then I think I'm ok with it. I'm fine with giving them that choice.

We could let a cop teach a class.

(02-22-2018 04:42 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(02-22-2018 04:38 PM)Claw Wrote:  

(02-22-2018 04:34 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(02-22-2018 03:58 PM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(02-22-2018 03:28 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  And that won't stop a shooter who walks in firing...nor would it stop someone from calling in a bomb threat and picking off people as they leave the building.

So, you oppose anything anyone else suggests, what’s your “solution” here?
Put a “guard” of some sort in the school-“we can’t afford that! Wed have to raise taxes!

Secure the building-they’ll just call in a bomb threat and kill them as they leave!

Uhhhh, ok. So, I guess your answer is to simply do nothing.

We have people searching for some reasonable solutions, and NONE will be foolproof, NONE will be 100%.

So, that means do nothing.

Unless of course it means trampling and abridging the rights of millions of law abiding citizens.

Do I have that about right?

No...as usual...you're being ridiculously obtuse.

As I've said many times...the only real solution is a total ban on guns. And that ain't happening, nor am I advocating for it.

I'm fine with school districts putting up barriers at entrances and even hiring armed forces if they so choose. I just don't want it mandated nationally and perhaps not even on a state level mandate.

I will never be in favor of arming teachers. Teachers are not law enforcement, nor should they be. They have a hard enough time just teaching.

I agree that solutions should be local.

However, I am sure there are teachers who could be armed. I wouldn't want to force it, but there are thousands of teachers. Some are probably quite capable. Some may even be policemen.

Don't disagree. But the problem there is that when actual law enforcement shows up, how do they know who the actual shooter is.

Oh, good grief.

Again, “can’t do that cause...”.

You’re ridiculous, pretty clear you just want the “issue”, not any actual solutions.

Everyone in the COUNTRY (damn close) now has a wireless phone, camera, and small computer in their pocket. The concealed carry Staff member would obviously be registered, and a FULL description of who he/she is, height, weight, age, color hair etc. would be readily available from dispatch as the Cops are coming in ten minutes after the shooting started.

That, and likely the cowardly little prick like this guy would already be dead or down.

(02-22-2018 04:58 PM)Mr_XcentricK Wrote:  

(02-22-2018 03:39 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(02-22-2018 03:11 PM)Mr_XcentricK Wrote:  AR-15s were not available in the 50s either

Several Semi-automatic rifles were available in the 50's.

SKS
M14 (semiauto for civilian use)
Baretta BM59 (semiauto for civilian use)
and several others.

Semi-automatic shotguns were also readily available.

What we didn't have in the 50's was rampant illegal drug use, millions of people on anti-depressants and anxiety medicine, and scores of fatherless homes, just to name a few.

Society was also far from perfect at that time. Rush is romanticizing the past.

So?

When has Society ever been “perfect”?

Answer, never. Taint never happenin neither.

No idea what Rush was saying, tried reading that wall of text in the link, never saw anything mentioning the ‘50’s.

(02-22-2018 05:21 PM)GeorgeBorkFan Wrote:  

(02-22-2018 04:42 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(02-22-2018 04:38 PM)Claw Wrote:  I agree that solutions should be local.

However, I am sure there are teachers who could be armed. I wouldn't want to force it, but there are thousands of teachers. Some are probably quite capable. Some may even be policemen.

Don't disagree. But the problem there is that when actual law enforcement shows up, how do they know who the actual shooter is.

The teacher lays down their weapon. How does it work for a normal concealed carry situation? How is this any different (in this context)?

Sure...in a perfect world. But we don't live in one.

(02-22-2018 05:03 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(02-22-2018 04:56 PM)Mr_XcentricK Wrote:  

(02-22-2018 03:36 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(02-22-2018 03:11 PM)Mr_XcentricK Wrote:  AR-15s were not available in the 50s either

So?

Had it been would the 50s have been different?

Hard to say.

But if someone in the 1950's had desired to shoot up a school all they had to do was order a SKS out of the back of a magazine and the US Postal Service would have delivered it to them at home.

Or went to the local hardware store and bought a surplus M1 Garand, a new Browning A5 shotgun, or a 1911 .45 handgun.

Or broken into their buddies truck parked over by the tennis courts and pulled his gun out of the rack.

We had guns all over our lot during “season”, never a shot fired...

(02-22-2018 05:18 PM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(02-22-2018 04:34 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(02-22-2018 03:58 PM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(02-22-2018 03:28 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(02-22-2018 03:16 PM)Claw Wrote:  I believe my kid went through a metal detector every day.

And that won't stop a shooter who walks in firing...nor would it stop someone from calling in a bomb threat and picking off people as they leave the building.

So, you oppose anything anyone else suggests, what’s your “solution” here?
Put a “guard” of some sort in the school-“we can’t afford that! Wed have to raise taxes!

Secure the building-they’ll just call in a bomb threat and kill them as they leave!

Uhhhh, ok. So, I guess your answer is to simply do nothing.

We have people searching for some reasonable solutions, and NONE will be foolproof, NONE will be 100%.

So, that means do nothing.

Unless of course it means trampling and abridging the rights of millions of law abiding citizens.

Do I have that about right?

No...as usual...you're being ridiculously obtuse.

As I've said many times...the only real solution is a total ban on guns. And that ain't happening, nor am I advocating for it.

I'm fine with school districts putting up barriers at entrances and even hiring armed forces if they so choose. I just don't want it mandated nationally and perhaps not even on a state level mandate.

I will never be in favor of arming teachers. Teachers are not law enforcement, nor should they be. They have a hard enough time just teaching.

Thanks for the personal attack right out of the gate, typical.

I’ve never been in favor of “arming teachers”, but I do know Asst football Coach Spears, the former career Marine and then ATF agent could handle himself if one of these cowards shows up at our HS.

And if it’s NOT mandated by one entity or another (not a national mandate, no) where do you think the next nut shows up?

Then we’re right back to this place, doing all this again.

Thus far, this a conversation, a discussion. Poo-pooing every idea out of the box cause they can’t be 100%, solves nothing, cuz that will never be the case under ANY scenario, total gun confiscation included.

I’ve offered my thoughts on the topic probably a dozen times by now, based on what we do in our County system. 60,000 Students.

NO idea why that can’t be done near everywhere, all localities have Cops.

Dude...correctly labeling you as obtuse is hardly a personal attack.

And you've clearly not read anything I've posted...or just refuse again to understand. I have no problem with districts taking steps including guards, checkpoints, etc. as they see fit to deal with this.

(02-22-2018 05:32 PM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(02-22-2018 04:42 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(02-22-2018 04:38 PM)Claw Wrote:  

(02-22-2018 04:34 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(02-22-2018 03:58 PM)JMUDunk Wrote:  So, you oppose anything anyone else suggests, what’s your “solution” here?
Put a “guard” of some sort in the school-“we can’t afford that! Wed have to raise taxes!

Secure the building-they’ll just call in a bomb threat and kill them as they leave!

Uhhhh, ok. So, I guess your answer is to simply do nothing.

We have people searching for some reasonable solutions, and NONE will be foolproof, NONE will be 100%.

So, that means do nothing.

Unless of course it means trampling and abridging the rights of millions of law abiding citizens.

Do I have that about right?

No...as usual...you're being ridiculously obtuse.

As I've said many times...the only real solution is a total ban on guns. And that ain't happening, nor am I advocating for it.

I'm fine with school districts putting up barriers at entrances and even hiring armed forces if they so choose. I just don't want it mandated nationally and perhaps not even on a state level mandate.

I will never be in favor of arming teachers. Teachers are not law enforcement, nor should they be. They have a hard enough time just teaching.

I agree that solutions should be local.

However, I am sure there are teachers who could be armed. I wouldn't want to force it, but there are thousands of teachers. Some are probably quite capable. Some may even be policemen.

Don't disagree. But the problem there is that when actual law enforcement shows up, how do they know who the actual shooter is.

Oh, good grief.

Again, “can’t do that cause...”.

You’re ridiculous, pretty clear you just want the “issue”, not any actual solutions.

Everyone in the COUNTRY (damn close) now has a wireless phone, camera, and small computer in their pocket. The concealed carry Staff member would obviously be registered, and a FULL description of who he/she is, height, weight, age, color hair etc.

That, and likely the cowardly little prick like this guy would already be dead or down.

Once again...you're being obtuse. Merely stating that this could cause an issue in no way says that it should not be tried or won't work in some cases. Excuse me for having the opinion that it might cause some issues...you know...like how most people who suffer gun violence in the home usually results from their own gun.