1. #26
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    May 2000
    Location
    Harrington, DE
    Posts
    328

    Cool

    Originally added by mikeyboy:

    Quote:
    This would be recent evidence of 1 individual that was armed, at the right spot at the right time and willing to act. Honestly, just because you are carrying doesn't necessarily mean that you will act... I've personally been on calls where somebody was carrying legally and never pulled the weapon.
    Why did they have a weapon???

  2. #27
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    813

    Cool I Know......

    Originally added by davjohnson:
    Why did they have a weapon???
    I agree..... but when I asked 'em that, the answer I was given was "I knew we'd be able to handle the situation without me pulling my firearm." His idea was that his pistol was a tool to be used as a last resort. Not a way to intimidate; Showed me that he truly respected what he was being trusted with.
    To be honest, I figured he must not have had the balls to pull it..... Glad I cleared that up..... LMAO
    "Be LOUD, Be PROUD..... It just might save your can someday when goin' through an intersection!!!!!"

    Life on the Truck (Quint) is good.....

    Eat til you're sleepy..... Sleep til you're hungry..... And repeat.....

  3. #28
    Forum Member
    KEEPBACK200FEET's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    East Carolina University
    Posts
    1,176

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by the1141man View Post
    Well, that same argument goes against you getting your CCW. After all, if a lot of people have CCWs without "good cause", you'll see fender-benders becoming street-corner shootouts, right?
    Oh wait, "Right to Carry" states haven't had that problem...yet...it's only a matter of time, right? Yep...it's been years, decades even in the cases of some states, but it's there, just waiting to happen.

    Of course, the same argument goes against allowing pilots to carry on their aircraft...

    And as I was taught in the police academy: there's always at least one gun present at every call--yours.
    So obviously, if the call is a nonviolent one, a "cold" report, say, you should lock your sidearm in the trunk, right? Safety first... you can carry this to as ridiculous an extreme as you like...

    Although I don't really follow your logic, isn't the whole reason of carrying concealed your perception that you need protection? Even if it were legal to CCW on campus, I doubt I'd ever do that. I feel like if I had to go to school everyday feeling like I needed to be packing, then I'd transfer somewhere where I felt safe. If the problem arose then, I'd have to Improvise, Adapt, and Overcome.
    Just know, I chose my own fate. I drove by the fork in the road and went straight.

    Quote Originally Posted by FlyingKiwi View Post
    Go put your pussy 2 1/2" lines away kiddies.

    Quote Originally Posted by Explorer343

    By the way KEEPBACK200FEET, you're so dramatic!

  4. #29
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    May 2000
    Location
    Harrington, DE
    Posts
    328

    Cool

    Quote Originally Posted by mikeyboy View Post
    Originally added by davjohnson:


    I agree..... but when I asked 'em that, the answer I was given was "I knew we'd be able to handle the situation without me pulling my firearm." His idea was that his pistol was a tool to be used as a last resort. Not a way to intimidate; Showed me that he truly respected what he was being trusted with.
    To be honest, I figured he must not have had the balls to pull it..... Glad I cleared that up..... LMAO
    Assuming no one else had a weapon, I can understand that logic.

  5. #30
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Posts
    138

    Default

    A Rifle in Every Pot


    By GLENN REYNOLDS
    Published: January 16, 2007
    Knoxville, Tenn.

    IT’S a phenomenon that gives the term “gun control” a whole new meaning: community ordinances that encourage citizens to own guns.

    Last month, Greenleaf, Idaho, adopted Ordinance 208, calling for its citizens to own guns and keep them ready in their homes in case of emergency. It’s not a response to high crime rates. As The Associated Press reported, “Greenleaf doesn’t really have crime ... the most violent offense reported in the past two years was a fist fight.” Rather, it’s a statement about preparedness in the event of an emergency, and an effort to promote a culture of self-reliance.

    And it may not be a bad idea. While pro-gun laws like the one in Greenleaf are mostly symbolic, to the extent that they actually make a difference, it is likely to be a positive one.

    Greenleaf is following in the footsteps of Kennesaw, Ga., which in 1982 passed a mandatory gun ownership law in response to a handgun ban passed in Morton Grove, Ill. Kennesaw’s crime dropped sharply, while Morton Grove’s did not.

    To some degree, this is rational. Criminals, unsurprisingly, would rather break into a house where they aren’t at risk of being shot. As David Kopel noted in a 2001 article in The Arizona Law Review, burglars report that they try to avoid homes where armed residents are likely to be present. We see this phenomenon internationally, too, with the United States having a lower proportion of “hot” burglaries — break-ins where the burglars know the home to be occupied — than countries with restrictive gun laws.

    Likewise, in the event of disasters that leave law enforcement overwhelmed, armed citizens can play an important role in stanching crime. Armed neighborhood watches deterred looting in parts of Houston and New Orleans in the aftermath of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita.

    Precisely because an armed populace can serve as an effective backup for law enforcement, the ownership of firearms was widely mandated during Colonial times, and the second Congress passed a statute in 1792 requiring adult male citizens to own guns.

    The twin purposes of self and community defense may very well lie behind the Second Amendment’s language encompassing both the importance of a well-regulated militia and the right of citizens to keep and bear arms. As the constitutional and criminal law scholar Don Kates has noted in the journal Constitutional Commentary, thinkers at the time when the Constitution was written drew no real distinction between resisting burglars, foreign invaders or domestic tyrants: All were wrongdoers that good citizens had the right, and the duty, to oppose with force.

    Greenleaf’s ordinance is consistent with this approach. But it may also serve another purpose.

    Experts don’t think the Kennesaw ordinance, which has never actually been enforced, did much to change gun ownership rates among Kennesaw residents. And, given that Greenleaf’s mayor has estimated that 80 percent of the town’s residents already own guns, the new ordinance can’t make all that much of a difference. But criminals are likely to suspect that towns with laws like these on the books will be unsympathetic to malefactors in general, and to conclude that they will do better elsewhere.

    To the extent that’s true, we’re likely to see other communities adopting similar laws so that criminals won’t see them as attractive alternatives. The result may be a different kind of “gun control.”

    Glenn Reynolds, a law professor at the University of Tennessee, is the author of the blog Instapundit and of “An Army of Davids: How Markets and Technology are Empowering Ordinary People to Take on Big Government, Big Media and Other Goliaths.”
    "In Tempore"

  6. #31
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Foggy California
    Posts
    968

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KEEPBACK200FEET View Post
    Although I don't really follow your logic, isn't the whole reason of carrying concealed your perception that you need protection? Even if it were legal to CCW on campus, I doubt I'd ever do that. I feel like if I had to go to school everyday feeling like I needed to be packing, then I'd transfer somewhere where I felt safe. If the problem arose then, I'd have to Improvise, Adapt, and Overcome.
    My logic was merely your logic taken to the next step... if you don't follow your own logic, that's because in retrospect, you realize what you said wasn't logical nor did it have any basis in fact... ergo, you are on the first step to enlightenment, young Paddleone.
    If you need a review: you made a remark that you feared "what would happen" during a "classroom argument" if students and teachers were allowed to carry concealed. I responded by pointing out that that same line of logic was used against Right to Carry legislation in every state wherein a bill for RTC has been sponsored... that allowing any non-felonious citizen to carry concealed if they so desired, would result in fender-bender TAs turning into street corner shootouts, or bar brawls turning into WWIII. As of yet, several states have passed RTC, and many more have very accomodating laws regarding concealed carry, and of those states, none have seen the rash of "street-corner/saloon shootouts" that everyone "logically" predicted would happen.
    It seems the NRA's old adage of "An armed citizenry is a polite citizenry," has held out...

    George--absolutely deterring a potential shooting situation is paramount, hence why I left it as #1 in my little version.
    I agree that according to traditional tactical doctrine, being "on the defense" puts one at a disadvantage. However, in this case, the "defense" has the element of surprise, which as countless histories will show, has been key to more than many major battles. Meaning, essentially, that most school/mall/other public place shooters go into the situation expecting little if any resistance for some time, and most certainly not from the "civilians"--if anything, they expect to face possibly an armed security guard, or peace officer on random patrol in the area who "stumbles into" the situation. Therefore, the armed citizen in this case has surprise completely in his favor.

    Just my thoughts, and for the most part, I'm just throwing monkey wrenches in your conveyor belt... we can debate strategy and tactics endlessly, to the point of quoting Sun Tzu, Von Clausewitz, and Musashi at each other, but the reality is that every such situation is a fluid thing and subject to so many variables it's impossible to even halfway guess what the outcome would be.

    Let's just say that if I was a citizen caught in a school/mall shooting situation, I would much rather have my .40 with me than not, and call it good, k?
    My opinions might coincide with someone of importance's POV... I wouldn't know, since I never bothered to ask. My policy is: "Don't ask, don't care."

    IACOJ--West Coast PITA

  7. #32
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    411

    Default

    Name:  gunfreezonecartoon.jpg
Views: 92
Size:  68.9 KB

    I don't think anyone should be forced to own a gun. It's a right; you don't have to personally accept it, just like you have the right to vote, yet more than half of Americans don't go to the polls. But if someone (a sound-minded private citizen, perhaps) wants to carry, that's their right. It's kind of hard to "bear" arms if you have to leave them at home. Most of these suicidal mass shootings don't occur in a private home, they occur in public, "gun-free" zones.
    "Yeah, but as I've always said, this country has A.D.D." - Denis Leary

    http://www.lettertogop.com/

  8. #33
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Foggy California
    Posts
    968

    Default

    PS, George:
    I have not ever fired a shot "in anger". But many fellow Guardsmen I know and talk to have engaged in battle, and several senior officers in one of the local PDs with whom I am well-acquainted have been in officer-involved shooting incidents. Nobody's saying it's "fun"--whether from the military perspective, or the LE one, and I think we can all agree if we could just set aside the guns for plinking soda cans and beer bottles, and join hands and sing kumbayah, the world would be just peachy.
    The reality, though, is that there are people in this world hellbent on doing harm to you and yours, whether you've done them a wrong or not, and they're going to try to do it whether you fight back or not. They just have a much better chance of success if you don't fight back.
    My opinions might coincide with someone of importance's POV... I wouldn't know, since I never bothered to ask. My policy is: "Don't ask, don't care."

    IACOJ--West Coast PITA

  9. #34
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Jul 1999
    Location
    Flanders, NJ
    Posts
    13,537

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by davjohnson View Post
    It's unrealistic to think you can stop someone who's intent on doing whatever it is they want to do, including mass murder. There was a recent attempt in a Colorado church where the gunman, with multiple weapons and 1000 rounds, was stopped by an armed citizen. That citizen saved countless other lives.
    He was stopped by an armed Security Officer.
    PROUD, HONORED AND HUMBLED RECIPIENT OF THE PURPLE HYDRANT AWARD - 10/2007.

  10. #35
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Jul 1999
    Location
    Flanders, NJ
    Posts
    13,537

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by the1141man View Post
    PS, George:
    I have not ever fired a shot "in anger". But many fellow Guardsmen I know and talk to have engaged in battle, and several senior officers in one of the local PDs with whom I am well-acquainted have been in officer-involved shooting incidents. Nobody's saying it's "fun"--whether from the military perspective, or the LE one, and I think we can all agree if we could just set aside the guns for plinking soda cans and beer bottles, and join hands and sing kumbayah, the world would be just peachy.
    The reality, though, is that there are people in this world hellbent on doing harm to you and yours, whether you've done them a wrong or not, and they're going to try to do it whether you fight back or not. They just have a much better chance of success if you don't fight back.
    I completely disagree with your thoughts about this, but respect your opinion.

    However, no officer should ever use deadly force "in anger". It should be used consistent with training in the appropriate situation.

    The world is not a kumbayah place and I never said it was. I also fully realize, maybe more than you know, that there are bad people in this world who will hurt somebidy. But there are an awful lot of things that should be done to harden our schools before we resort to armed teachers.
    PROUD, HONORED AND HUMBLED RECIPIENT OF THE PURPLE HYDRANT AWARD - 10/2007.

  11. #36
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    May 2000
    Location
    Harrington, DE
    Posts
    328

    Cool

    Quote Originally Posted by GeorgeWendtCFI View Post
    He was stopped by an armed Security Officer.
    Armed security guard or armed citizen...it's a matter of semantics. The girl was a security volunteer with the church. Yes, trained, licensed, and former law enforcement, but not employed by any agency. ...definitely her calling, but that's not the issue here.

    Is there any comparison between this incident and the probability of a school shooting???

  12. #37
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Jul 1999
    Location
    Flanders, NJ
    Posts
    13,537

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by davjohnson View Post
    Armed security guard or armed citizen...it's a matter of semantics. The girl was a security volunteer with the church. Yes, trained, licensed, and former law enforcement, but not employed by any agency. ...definitely her calling, but that's not the issue here.

    Is there any comparison between this incident and the probability of a school shooting???
    Yes. Both are extremely remote. Other than that, none at all.

    You would also find out that the security was in place due to an earlier shooting at a Christian camp/school that was loosely affiliated with the church. The church does not regularly provide armed security.
    PROUD, HONORED AND HUMBLED RECIPIENT OF THE PURPLE HYDRANT AWARD - 10/2007.

  13. #38
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    May 2000
    Location
    SW MO
    Posts
    4,249

    Default

    I tend to agree with George on this one. Even though my wife is a teacher and I substitute, I don't feel like gun toting teachers are the answer. I don't konw that our schools are representative of what is the norm across the nation, but it's what I have to compare to and what I have experience with. Our teachers are predominately women in their 40's and 50's, none of which can I think of that could effectively stop an armed rat from an attack. Perhaps two or three men in the school would I even consider to have the ability, and they have combat experience in the military.

    The biggest problem I see in my area is denial. I have met with the school where my wife teaches and I sub on a number of occassions. The last was shortly after a kid walked into a middle school in Joplin, MO (where I was working at the station that is second-in to that particular school the day it happened). Even after an incident where a student had walked in with an assault rifle, fired a round, and thank God the gun jammed and he didn't know how to clear it, our school is of the opinion "it won't happen here." They are more concerned with "intruders" who aren't students.

    I did much like George that same day. I had walked in, walked by the office where we're supposed to check in, and roamed the halls. I got met by one teacher who asked "can I help you?" I told her no and proceded, not once stopped and asked for an ID or anything.

    Until the schools are willing to take the steps to recognize there's a problem, find ways to mitigate and preven the problem from occurring, and plan for it to happen, there's no reason to even consider guns. Now, if they plan for an incident, take the steps to prevent it from happening or mitigate the cause of these kids "going postal" (which seems to be contributed to bullying most times), and take the steps to protect the kids and there's still a problem, that's the time to consider if, who, when, and where guns should be involved, an not until the point all other means are exhausted.

    I also saw George cite the National Schools Safety Center. While these incidents are isolated, there's a lot of interesing information that they have available. While we hear all about the Columbine, Red Lake, and VT incidents, you'd be astonished to find out how much these things really happen where only one or two kids are killed and it doesn't make the major media. I think this is one of the biggest reasons our school system refuses to take any action toward prevention; they don't realize how often this happens beyond what the national media reports.

  14. #39
    MembersZone Subscriber
    ChiefReason's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2001
    Location
    Illinois-where pertnear is close enough!
    Posts
    5,636

    Default

    Just a few days ago, not far from here, a person was on a high school campus with weapons. He was there to confront a student. Get it? This person with the gun was NOT a student of the high school.
    My point is; is the safe zone around the school actually the killing field for a gunman?
    How do you control non-essential personnel from gaining access to the campus, once the school bell rings?
    How can you hire security guards and install monitoring devices when every last dime in a school budget is spent?
    How do we make public places such as schools and shopping malls less attractive to nutjobs and more secure for you and me?
    Just today, a Canadian MUSLIM is charged with murdering his daughter for "honor". Because she wanted to be a "normal" high school student. OTHER students knew this girl was being physically abused by her father, but no one could confirm today that anyone had come forward previously with this information.
    Apathy is why there is so much killing going on. Or in the case of the youtube generation, they might miss getting it on video if they have to actually call 911 to report suspicious behavior.
    It's a very sick, sick society that we live in.
    CR
    Visit www.iacoj.com
    Remember Bradley Golden (9/25/01)
    RIP HOF Robert J. Compton(ENG6511)

  15. #40
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    May 2000
    Location
    Harrington, DE
    Posts
    328

    Cool

    Quote Originally Posted by GeorgeWendtCFI View Post
    Yes. Both are extremely remote. Other than that, none at all.

    You would also find out that the security was in place due to an earlier shooting at a Christian camp/school that was loosely affiliated with the church. The church does not regularly provide armed security.
    It was her suggestion to beef up security at the church that morning. She must have been an outstanding cop in her day.

    With all these random shootings in the past year or so, where does the real problem lie??? Is it gun control, general public apathy, failed mental health systems, government fear of civil litigation, inneffective criminal justice system, or something none of us even realize yet???

  16. #41
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Foggy California
    Posts
    968

    Default

    George--"in anger", a figure of speech tracing back to at least the early 20th century, if not to the 19th, meaning to use a weapon in a hostile situation, as opposed to the "noncombative" use of a firearm, aka plinking bottles or hunting animals. I didn't literally mean anyone was shooting because they were angry...though I can tell ya some Guard guys were rightly ****ed-off at bein ambushed!

    I guess my whole train of thought goes like this:
    If I'm unarmed, I have two options--try to escape, or try to hide. Just about every such shooting these days, the shooter is engaged in a "search and destroy" mode of operation. He's tryin to find and kill as many people as possible in as little time as possible. Hiding is effective only so long as he doesn't come to the room, closet, etc where you've decided to hide. Then you are the literal fish in the barrel.
    As for the escape route--you can try running to the door, but as the old "police/Marine saying" (it's been attributed to both Marines and SWAT operators) goes, unless you can run faster than 1000fps, you'll just die tired.

    If I'm armed, I have three options--escape, hide, or return fire. Escape and hiding still have the same likely-lethal (for me) outcomes that they do if I don't have a weapon, although by hiding, I may be able to spring a trap and gain a definite tactical advantage... but again that requires being armed to do so. Also, finding a defensible position of cover and returning fire may be a viable alternative, and if effective, brings the "active shooter" situation to a "premature" close and prevents him from engaging in his "search and destroy" activities.
    My opinions might coincide with someone of importance's POV... I wouldn't know, since I never bothered to ask. My policy is: "Don't ask, don't care."

    IACOJ--West Coast PITA

  17. #42
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Canuck Expat May be anywhere
    Posts
    2,906

    Default

    I presume that the age to apply and receive a carry permit would be at least 18? So If schools become open carry zones, we would be talking about college/universities? Hypothesise if you will 2 x young men 20 years old both after affection of same young lady, testosterone raging, words and even shoves have been exchanged, finally in class, in corridor, in cafeteria tempers flare and break. Instead of a few punches being thrown, you have the potential for a bloody gun battle with more than likely innocent stand bys hurt or killed. Improbable? one would hope but impossible no if you have part or more of a building full of young people carrying deadly weapons.
    Secondly, as the gentleman who is a sub teacher points out, most teachers don't have the skill, nor probably the desire to hone their shooting skills to be the last bastion between students and some nut job. I'm in total agreement with George here, put in security but put the accountability and responsibility on the school districts to adhere to it. ( School districts just hate that word accountability) Schools have got to be a safe haven for our children to receive an education. Teachers packing 44's is not going to foster that image
    In Virginia, an armed student may have made the difference, we will never know, but that was one isolated incident. In Colombine, there was an armed presence but he/she was unable to effectively intervene.

  18. #43
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    May 2000
    Location
    Harrington, DE
    Posts
    328

    Cool

    Just wondering, does the Foggy California PD or any other agency provide any type of instruction to the general public on how to react in these type of shooter situations??? Are there any situations on record where that training may have changed the outcome???

  19. #44
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    411

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BryanLoader View Post
    I presume that the age to apply and receive a carry permit would be at least 18? So If schools become open carry zones, we would be talking about college/universities? Hypothesise if you will 2 x young men 20 years old both after affection of same young lady, testosterone raging, words and even shoves have been exchanged, finally in class, in corridor, in cafeteria tempers flare and break. Instead of a few punches being thrown, you have the potential for a bloody gun battle with more than likely innocent stand bys hurt or killed. Improbable? one would hope but impossible no if you have part or more of a building full of young people carrying deadly weapons.
    Respectfully, if we have opened the door to hypothesize, might I turn this around a bit?

    Imagine, if you will, a gun free zone where these two gentlemen are jockeying for the same pretty girl, and neither are armed that day at school. Perhaps, one of these two men has a serious anger management issue, a ****y cheerios kind-of-guy. He goes to the pawn shop the next day, yet has no prior history of mental health records, chooses a nickel-finish .38 revolver with a few extra moon clips, and returns to the "gun free" campus in two weeks, packing heat (not a box of matches). He sees his girl and the guy he's competing with together and he takes 'em out (not on a date, just to clarify). Hell, now crazy shooter, as he’s referred to here-throughout, is going to jail with the definite possibility of the death penalty (depending on his age), so he wonders "why not take with me some more people who have life so much better than I do?" So now he's just walking up to other students, methodically, lackidaisically, pow . . . . pow . . . . pow . . . and so forth (Luby's Cafe' style). Of course, he's got all the time in the world, because lots of students are just hiding in the classrooms like they've been instructed by the "experts” (all of whom are safely at home, sitting by a fire and drinking hot cocoa; writing books and preparing lectures on how to survive an encounter with a mad gunman and/or hostage situation). Quite a few minutes have passed since the first shots rang out, SWAT has been called up and has an ETA of 15-20 Minutes from its metro HQ. The first police units have been on scene for a few minutes but protocol is to set up a perimeter first, before formulating a plan, and moving in (which at this point, none of the LEO units have definite information regarding how many shooters, how many victims, etc.). Scratch that, they’ve just been advised to wait for the SWAT team unless confronted by the shooter or an advantageous opportunity arises to take him out (on a date?, cough, I mean, shoot him). But that ain’t happening fellas’, because the crazy guy inside is starting to run low on ammo, and takes his own life, but only after killing 17 others, and just minutes before SWAT storms the building (i.e. quick-stepping down the hallways heel-to-toe, searching room to room, escorting victims out of the buildings). Unfortunately for crazy shooter guy, 17 is less than 32, so he wouldn't get quite as much media coverage as Cho, but that's another rant for another day concerning our ravenous media networks.

    Cliché public shooting.

    Improbable? Well, similar-style shootings have occurred before in “gun free” zones. A lot of people will defeat this scenario with statistics, as in only 0.0093% (or whatever the actual is) of our nations schools will ever, at some point, have a shooting occur on campus. Of course, one could try sharing these statistics with a crazy shooter, if one ever were to meet said crazy shooter, and he was feeling a bit chatty while he was reloading. So, yes, statistically improbable. Impossible? Nope. Did I even need to ask? Unfortunately, using the logic of our debate, it doesn’t make a damn bit of difference until it happens to me, at which point, I will find myself in the company of 0.0093% of campus students who have been in a shooter situation.

    So who does our society blame and punish? Pretty girls? Of course not. The two hot-blooded boys? Well, at least one pulled the trigger that day, at least crazy shooter is highly to blame. The gun? Yeah, we do, in a way, blame this, uh, inanimate, object.

    How about: 99.9999999% of the sane population that would like their rights to “bear arms” not to be infringed? DING DING DING! Correct; let us infringe upon their rights based on what “might” happen, instead of guaranteeing their rights based on what “has” happened.

    Crazy shooter don’t look so crazy any more, do he?
    Last edited by GodSendRain; 12-17-2007 at 06:48 PM. Reason: coffee is no spelling teacher
    "Yeah, but as I've always said, this country has A.D.D." - Denis Leary

    http://www.lettertogop.com/

  20. #45
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Jul 1999
    Location
    Flanders, NJ
    Posts
    13,537

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BryanLoader View Post
    I presume that the age to apply and receive a carry permit would be at least 18? So If schools become open carry zones, we would be talking about college/universities? Hypothesise if you will 2 x young men 20 years old both after affection of same young lady, testosterone raging, words and even shoves have been exchanged, finally in class, in corridor, in cafeteria tempers flare and break. Instead of a few punches being thrown, you have the potential for a bloody gun battle with more than likely innocent stand bys hurt or killed. Improbable? one would hope but impossible no if you have part or more of a building full of young people carrying deadly weapons.
    Secondly, as the gentleman who is a sub teacher points out, most teachers don't have the skill, nor probably the desire to hone their shooting skills to be the last bastion between students and some nut job. I'm in total agreement with George here, put in security but put the accountability and responsibility on the school districts to adhere to it. ( School districts just hate that word accountability) Schools have got to be a safe haven for our children to receive an education. Teachers packing 44's is not going to foster that image
    In Virginia, an armed student may have made the difference, we will never know, but that was one isolated incident. In Colombine, there was an armed presence but he/she was unable to effectively intervene.
    I am against this whole thing, but I take exception to this post. This idiotic view that alot of Canadians have of Americans as a people who settle their disputes with firearms is dead wrong. 99% of gun owners in this country are upstanding, responsible citizens who respect the responsibility that gun ownership carries. They promote and support gun safety above all else.
    PROUD, HONORED AND HUMBLED RECIPIENT OF THE PURPLE HYDRANT AWARD - 10/2007.

  21. #46
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Foggy California
    Posts
    968

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BryanLoader View Post
    I presume that the age to apply and receive a carry permit would be at least 18?
    You presume incorrectly. The minimum age in the United States to even (legally) purchase a handgun is 21. Further, California law states that no one under the age of 21 may have in their possession a handgun (except under supervision of a parent/guardian), loaded or not, nor may they purchase ammunition for a handgun. Therefore, in California, at least, one may not apply for a CCW earlier than age 21.

    So If schools become open carry zones, we would be talking about college/universities? Hypothesise if you will 2 x young men 20 years old both after affection of same young lady, testosterone raging, words and even shoves have been exchanged, finally in class, in corridor, in cafeteria tempers flare and break. Instead of a few punches being thrown, you have the potential for a bloody gun battle with more than likely innocent stand bys hurt or killed. Improbable? one would hope but impossible no if you have part or more of a building full of young people carrying deadly weapons.
    Again, you present the exact same tired old scenario that KEEPBACK200FT trotted out... the perennial argument used in states proposing "Right to Carry" legislation (RTC means that if you take the classes for a CCW and aren't a felon or otherwise "prohibited" person from possessing a firearm, that you must be granted a CCW if you apply) that if "everyone" has a gun, then every fender-bender traffic accident will result in street-corner shootouts, and every bar brawl will result in a charnel house of GSW victims...
    As I ripped on KEEPBACK--your argument has no basis in reality... Several states have passed Right to Carry laws, or have extremely accomodating CCW laws, and guess what? The "doomsday" predictions that there'll be shootouts over TAs and whatnot...never happened.
    Do us all a favor and find a new argument to HotTrot out, ok?

    Quote Originally Posted by davjohnson
    Just wondering, does the Foggy California PD or any other agency provide any type of instruction to the general public on how to react in these type of shooter situations??? Are there any situations on record where that training may have changed the outcome???
    I assume you're speaking of "reaction" in terms of armed citizens with CCWs? Firstly, you must understand that by and large, Californians are against guns (excepting those few of us lucky enough to live in the rural areas), and even moreso against private citizens with guns. Remember that San Francisco tried to pass an ordinance banning all privately-owned firearms from the city limits, period, a couple of years ago (I believe it has since been struck down as un-Constitutional, even by the California Constitution).
    There is an unspoken, unwritten rule, that CCWs are pretty much reserved unto the "rich, famous, and political" ... even if you complete your Handgun Safety Course (prerequisite to even buying a handgun in this state) and your CCW course (both of which are provided mostly by private ranges for a charge on top of the state fees), if you walk into the PD/SD and fill out a CCW application, and state as the "Reason for Applying" that you want it for "personal/self-defense", you can expect with 1000% (yes, one-thousand) percent certainty that your application will be denied. You don't have a right to self-defense in California--you just have the right to call 9-1-1 and hope the cops get there before your assailant gets done killing you.
    However, if you're a wealthy businessman who regularly carries a lot of money, well, come right on in, sir... Likewise, if you're a local policitian, or friend of one, well, that's no problem either. Hell, if you're a "good" local politician, you might just not only get a CCW, but a department-issued sidearm to carry, too! (In Fresno County, anyways--your mileage may vary elsewhere)

    Second factor: California is by far the most litigation-happy state in the Union. I could imagine any police agency offering "training" to CCW holders (especially CCWs, but even "regular" private citizens) would immediately be sued by the "poor, misunderstood youth's" family (that would happen whether a "trained" civilian did it or an LEO did, though) as well as 50 other people who were present when the "LE-trained CCW holder" put down an active shooter (alleging hearing loss, hot brass burn, etc). In addition the CCW holder him/herself would be sued by the "innocent victim's" family, the 50 bystanders who lost hearing, were blinded by the muzzle flash, suffered emotional trauma, blah blah, etc etc, and would most likely turn around and sue the LE agency just to recoup the costs of the lawsuits against them personally...
    The only training any LE agency in this state would ever offer is "duck and cover", "try to hide", "call 9-1-1," and that's really about it.
    Besides, any such agency providing training above and beyond that would be considered "encouraging violence/heroics", and would of course be immediately shouted down by the public-at-large.

    Quote Originally Posted by GeorgeWendtCFI
    This idiotic view that alot of Canadians have of Americans as a people who settle their disputes with firearms is dead wrong.
    Hell, George, we all know that it's not just the Canadians who hold that "idiotic" view... I think it's safe to say that most of the rest of the world considers us a violent, savage, brutish lot, and by comparison to them, we are. I mean, we gave the world football (as opposed to "futbol" ), mixed martial arts and the UFC, and look at who the cultural heroes have been and are: John Wayne, Clint Eastwood, Sly Stallone, Ah-nold, Bruce Willis...none of whom have made something in the genre of Steel Magnolias, The First Wives Club, or Sisterhood of the Traveling Pants....
    My opinions might coincide with someone of importance's POV... I wouldn't know, since I never bothered to ask. My policy is: "Don't ask, don't care."

    IACOJ--West Coast PITA

  22. #47
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Canuck Expat May be anywhere
    Posts
    2,906

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GeorgeWendtCFI View Post
    I am against this whole thing, but I take exception to this post. This idiotic view that alot of Canadians have of Americans as a people who settle their disputes with firearms is dead wrong. 99% of gun owners in this country are upstanding, responsible citizens who respect the responsibility that gun ownership carries. They promote and support gun safety above all else.
    Well George I hate to burst your bubble again, but the top 5 developed countries with highest per capita gun ownership as per Lycos.com

    The rich nations with the highest gun ownership per capita (in rough descending order) are:

    Finland
    Switzerland
    Israel
    Canada
    USA

    Countries with highest Incidence of gun violence
    USA #8
    Germany #21
    Australia # 28

    Other 4 cities on top gun ownership not even listed in top 50.

    Course Canada now will probably slip off the top gun ownership list since you feel their position on Tasers will soon lead them to disarm much like many European countries. Unamed of course. Perhaps when using the term idiot George, hold a mirror in hand so you know of what you speak

  23. #48
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Jul 1999
    Location
    Flanders, NJ
    Posts
    13,537

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BryanLoader View Post
    Well George I hate to burst your bubble again, but the top 5 developed countries with highest per capita gun ownership as per Lycos.com

    The rich nations with the highest gun ownership per capita (in rough descending order) are:

    Finland
    Switzerland
    Israel
    Canada
    USA

    Countries with highest Incidence of gun violence
    USA #8
    Germany #21
    Australia # 28

    Other 4 cities on top gun ownership not even listed in top 50.

    Course Canada now will probably slip off the top gun ownership list since you feel their position on Tasers will soon lead them to disarm much like many European countries. Unamed of course. Perhaps when using the term idiot George, hold a mirror in hand so you know of what you speak
    You didn't burst my bubble. My comment was not about gun ownership. It was about attitude. We have had this discussion on these forums before and the most vehement anti-gun ownership people were Canadian. the attitude about US gun owners that I spoke of has also been stated to me in person.

    My read on the RCMP situation is that there is a large faction up there who would be very happy with the Mounties having no weapons. If you don't agree, that's OK. But that is my opinion.

    BTW, I did not call you an idiot. I called the attitude idiotic.
    PROUD, HONORED AND HUMBLED RECIPIENT OF THE PURPLE HYDRANT AWARD - 10/2007.

  24. #49
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Canuck Expat May be anywhere
    Posts
    2,906

    Default

    George I apologise if I took your statement personally. As far as gun ownership, I am totally in favor and in fact was a gun owner for much of my life. I received a Cooey 22 repeater for my sixth Christmas and shot my first deer with a Winchester 30 30 at 8 years old. I finally sold and/or gave away my guns about 15 years ago, ( only 4 of of em) as my family did not enjoy wild meat and I would not shoot just for the sake of killing something.
    You will find that Canada is quite uniquely divided on gun ownership, Ontairio which is a basically urban popuation is for abolition of everything even remotely considered a firearm, Quebec bounces around depending on what statement they think will get them the biggest handout from Ottawa, 4 Maritimes are basically pro gun ownership and 4 western provinces are staunchly pro gun ownership. Now keep in mind this has nothing to do with handguns or assault rifles. Handgun license is almost impossible to get and an assault type rifle is impossible to buy.
    The Anti gun ownership provinces have their own provincial police force, OPP and QPP so would have no bearing on RCMP armed or not. If it was taken to a plebiscite which will never happen, my guess would be 85 to 90% against disarming RCMP. Just something that will never happen.

  25. #50
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Memphis Tn,USA-now
    Posts
    5,436

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Steamin441 View Post
    Teachers have a calling,(we hope) to teach our youngsters. For most it is a lifetime job. Imagine the majority of public school teachers being in the twenty plus age range.(just guessing by looking around my district) We are asking them to carry a pistol? Times are changing yes but put in the protection as a layer so our teachers can teach. Sheesh.
    Requirements for Teaching B.A.- the usual and you must qualify for CWP. Would you prefer a revolver or an automatic?

    It isn't too difficult.After all,there's fire departments that require EMT licensure after attending the training academy and filling their brains with all the knowledge to "run into burning buildings while sane people are running out".
    If retaining the learning from two such disparate disciplines is too much for teachers,what does that say about firefighters?
    I have several friends who teach and they are VERY proficient with their shooting irons.They don't go looking to shoot their students and don't even joke about doing so when a student can't grasp a concept.
    They're too mature for that.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. And they wonder why they can't get good teachers to stay.....
    By DaSharkie in forum The Off Duty Forums
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 03-31-2007, 01:10 PM
  2. Armed teachers? Maybe ... maybe not...
    By Jasper 45 in forum The Off Duty Forums
    Replies: 61
    Last Post: 10-16-2006, 03:05 PM
  3. Teachers should be BAT
    By firekid1234 in forum Firefighters Forum
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 09-28-2004, 12:08 PM
  4. Good Grief...Touchy Feely Teachers...
    By Dalmatian90 in forum The Off Duty Forums
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 08-27-2004, 10:40 AM
  5. nail guns
    By billy in forum Specialized Rescue
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 02-17-1999, 03:09 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

Log in

Click here to log in or register