Why register? ...To Enhance Your Experience
+ Reply to Thread
Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 74
  1. #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


  2. #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.

  3. #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???

  4. #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 05:48 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/

  5. #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.

  6. #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

  7. #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

  8. #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.

  9. #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.

  10. #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.

  11. #51
    Forum Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    East of the Pecos...South of North Carolina
    Posts
    169

    Default

    If that response is not apples to oranges then I don't know bananas.
    Suggest firefighters be armed by the same argument,( for some perceived threat they might be able to subdue ) and...well?
    Last edited by Steamin441; 12-20-2007 at 06:47 PM.

  12. #52
    Forum Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Memphis Tn,USA-now
    Posts
    5,436

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Steamin441 View Post
    If that response is not apples to oranges then I don't know bananas.
    Suggest firefighters be armed by the same argument,( for some perceived threat they might be able to subdue ) and...well?
    The point that I was trying to make(if you wuz responding to mine)was that having knowledge about different jobs is not difficult to acquire and is very common.The firefighter/EMT analogy was just a demonstration that you can learn how to don and doff an SCBA unit,spray water on a fire,use an Amkus tool,ventilate a roof or run a pump panel,as well as know how to patch up somebody's ouchies.
    And yes,I have heard anecdotal evidence of firefighters arming themselves during times of strife,the Watts Riots back in the 60s being one example.
    What's yer pernt?That since school shootings occur when an 8th grader gets jilted by his girlfriend(I have numerous friends who were involved at Heath Middle School in Kentucky),then NO ONE should be allowed to have firearms?
    The laws say 18 to buy a long gun and 21 for handgun purchases.The FFL dealers I buy from obey that law but it's the street dealer(I've never heard of any personally with deals like $200 for an M16)that is one way to obtain firearms illegally.When someone shoots up a Bible class,guess who gets the punishment from the BATFE?
    Last edited by doughesson; 12-21-2007 at 02:33 PM.

  13. #53
    Forum Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    East of the Pecos...South of North Carolina
    Posts
    169

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by doughesson View Post
    The point that I was trying to make(if you wuz responding to mine)was that having knowledge about different jobs is not difficult to acquire and is very common.The firefighter/EMT analogy was just a demonstration that you can learn how to don and doff an SCBA unit,spray water on a fire,use an Amkus tool,ventilate a roof or run a pump panel,as well as know how to patch up somebody's ouchies.
    And yes,I have heard anecdotal evidence of firefighters arming themselves during times of strife,the Watts Riots back in the 60s being one example.
    What's yer pernt?That since school shootings occur when an 8th grader gets jilted by his girlfriend(I have numerous friends who were involved at Heath Middle School in Kentucky),then NO ONE should be allowed to have firearms?
    The laws say 18 to buy a long gun and 21 for handgun purchases.The FFL dealers I buy from obey that law but it's the street dealer(I've never heard of any personally with deals like $200 for an M16)that is one way to obtain firearms illegally.When someone shoots up a Bible class,guess who gets the punishment from the BATFE?

    My point is I don't want to teach my dog to be a cat.

  14. #54
    MembersZone Subscriber
    Join Date
    Jul 1999
    Location
    Flanders, NJ
    Posts
    13,537

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by doughesson View Post
    The laws say 18 to buy a long gun and 21 for handgun purchases.The FFL dealers I buy from obey that law but it's the street dealer(I've never heard of any personally with deals like $200 for an M16)that is one way to obtain firearms illegally.When someone shoots up a Bible class,guess who gets the punishment from the BATFE?
    Which is a great point. We do not need one more stinking gun law in this country. We need a concentrated effort by law enforcement and the judiciary to aggresively enforce the gun laws we already have. That will, without a doubt, reduce gun crime.
    PROUD, HONORED AND HUMBLED RECIPIENT OF THE PURPLE HYDRANT AWARD - 10/2007.

  15. #55
    Forum Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    East of the Pecos...South of North Carolina
    Posts
    169

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GeorgeWendtCFI View Post
    Which is a great point. We do not need one more stinking gun law in this country. We need a concentrated effort by law enforcement and the judiciary to aggresively enforce the gun laws we already have. That will, without a doubt, reduce gun crime.
    "Enforce the gun laws we already have" Constant response from the N.R.A. (Protector of the Second Amendment). A platform dating back to the Seventies at least. Maybe should have been the 1870's. The politician that advocates teachers carrying firearms is lazy and not a leader. Allow the government agency charged with protecting public schools to do their mandated job.

    Instead of a rationalization of cross-training Arts Majors, put in place what is needed to provide safe learning.

  16. #56
    Forum Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Foggy California
    Posts
    968

    Default

    A platform dating back to the Seventies at least. Maybe should have been the 1870's. The politician that advocates teachers carrying firearms is lazy and not a leader. Allow the government agency charged with protecting public schools to do their mandated job.
    Again, a demonstrated singular lack of knowledge about history:
    Back in those days, it was not only acceptable, but common for both pupils and teachers in those days to carry and have "weapons" in their possession in the school house...including rifles. Oops. Doubly so when you consider that at that time, there were no documented school shootings taking place.
    Need I point out that all these "protection agencies" didn't exist until a scant few decades ago? The first, best "protection agency" is yourself.
    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. #57
    Forum Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    411

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Steamin441 View Post
    If that response is not apples to oranges then I don't know bananas.
    Suggest firefighters be armed by the same argument,( for some perceived threat they might be able to subdue ) and...well?
    I guess if they want to. There are some stations in my area that aren't exactly in Mister Roger's neighborhood, if you catch my drift.

    Regarding personal protection:

    We can’t realistically suggest to the public that trained professionals (we firefighters) are the best and only hope for them during a house fire. I think almost everyone on here can honestly admit that best hope for someone during a house fire, especially in the first crucial moments, is, well, that very person who is inside the burning house. Provided that they are conscious, have a plan, are able-bodied enough to carry out that plan, and carry it out swiftly before the smoke and/or fire overwhelms them, they will be a far greater asset to their own personal survival than a firefighter who must respond from miles away (who, keep in mind, is also trained to protect firstly himself/herself, then the victim, then the property). But that’s why we teach fire prevention. That’s why we teach people to get out and stay out. That’s why we encourage families to have an escape plan and *gasp* actually hold fire drills. That’s why we hope and pray like hell someone learns something through our lectures and demonstrations, because biggest problem we face is:

    Everyone thinks it will never happen to them, until it does.

    A good save, in my opinion, is when you first arrive on the scene of a burning house at 0204 hours and all of the household members are standing in the driveway, and perhaps a feeling of pride would not be absent should you discover that the kid whose preschool you visited to teach that fire safety lesson last year is among them. But I digress.

    I agree with George on his latest point, and I feel we don’t enforce the current gun laws for the same exact reason. We never think it will happen - we just don’t check up on firearms dealers to see if they are actually doing the background checks, or maybe if they’re selling to a guy who knows a guy who wants to own a gun (kind of like buying beer for the kid out in front of the liquor store). Even the dealers themselves are shocked and might even feel a bit guilty when a gun purchased at their store is used to carry out such a heinous act (as was Cho’s seller). Our society has to be constantly reminded that danger does exist, or we tend to get lax and complacent.

    But why carry a gun if you’ve never been shot at? Why own a fire extinguisher if you’ve never watched your house burn down?

    Of course, ultimately it’s South Carolina’s decision, not mine. Whether or not I agree with it, I can’t very well ask the rest of the country to condone or rebuke it.
    "Yeah, but as I've always said, this country has A.D.D." - Denis Leary

    http://www.lettertogop.com/

  18. #58
    MembersZone Subscriber
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Canuck Expat May be anywhere
    Posts
    2,906

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GeorgeWendtCFI View Post
    Which is a great point. We do not need one more stinking gun law in this country. We need a concentrated effort by law enforcement and the judiciary to aggresively enforce the gun laws we already have. That will, without a doubt, reduce gun crime.
    Absolute total 100% agreement with you on this George and I just wish it would carry on up above the 49th. Lets just say any crime carried out with violence or threat of violence, including baseball bats, knives, syringes, guns, fake guns whatever the hell these scum use carry an [B][B]automatic MANDATORY sentence of 25 years with no possibility of parole. To cover anyone over the age of say 14. Might at least cut down on repeat offenders with a crime sheet as long as your arm by the time they hit 18
    Last edited by BryanLoader; 12-22-2007 at 11:40 AM.

  19. #59
    MembersZone Subscriber
    Join Date
    May 2000
    Location
    SW MO
    Posts
    4,249

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GeorgeWendtCFI View Post
    Which is a great point. We do not need one more stinking gun law in this country. We need a concentrated effort by law enforcement and the judiciary to aggresively enforce the gun laws we already have. That will, without a doubt, reduce gun crime.
    Amen! I would add only one thing to your statement; aggressively punish those who violate the gun laws. This pansy slap-on-the-wrist crap isn't going to cut it.

    The 14 year-old boy that took the gun into a Joplin, MO middle school, fired it, and tried to shoot the principle is still awaiting trial. While our judiciary is taking their sweet time (allowing the defense to stall), there are a number of people in the community calling for a light punishment (probaton), because "he's only a child." Apparently, there are those in our society who are naive enough to believe a child cannot kill.

  20. #60
    MembersZone Subscriber
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Posts
    138

    Default

    "The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing. Indeed, I would go so far as to say that the supply of arms to the underdogs is a sine qua non for the overthrow of any sovereignty. So let's not have any native militia or native police. German troops alone will bear the sole responsibility for the maintenance of law and order throughout the occupied Russian territories, and a system of military strong-points must be evolved to cover the entire occupied country." --Adolf Hitler, dinner talk on April 11, 1942, quoted in Hitler's Table Talk 1941-44: His Private Conversations, Second Edition (1973), Pg. 425-426. Translated by Norman Cameron and R. H. Stevens. Introduced and with a new preface by H. R. Trevor-Roper. The original German papers were known as Bormann-Vermerke

    Nazi Weapons Act of 1938 (Translated to English)

    Classified guns for "sporting purposes".
    All citizens who wished to purchase firearms had to register with the Nazi officials and have a background check.
    Presumed German citizens were hostile and thereby exempted Nazis from the gun control law.
    Gave Nazis unrestricted power to decide what kinds of firearms could, or could not be owned by private persons.
    The types of ammunition that were legal were subject to control by bureaucrats.
    Juveniles under 18 years could not buy firearms and ammunition.
    "In Tempore"

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, 12:10 PM
  2. Armed teachers? Maybe ... maybe not...
    By Jasper 45 in forum The Off Duty Forums
    Replies: 61
    Last Post: 10-16-2006, 02:05 PM
  3. Teachers should be BAT
    By firekid1234 in forum Firefighters Forum
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 09-28-2004, 11:08 AM
  4. Good Grief...Touchy Feely Teachers...
    By Dalmatian90 in forum The Off Duty Forums
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 08-27-2004, 09:40 AM
  5. nail guns
    By billy in forum Specialized Rescue
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 02-17-1999, 02:09 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