-
We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.
Texas school district letting teachers carry guns
Page 6 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
jlee
Lifer
I went by your profile.
Now that you've straightened that out, feel free to address the rest of my post- with a little more eloquence, if you don't mind.
Add something useful, you say. And this is coming from a guy who, when replying to a 9 paragraph response, could only come up with a 'fuck you'? Dude...this is pathetic.
JulesMaximus
No Lifer
:roll: Y'know, that didn't answer my question at all.
If more people would be responsible with their firearms and with raising their children we wouldn't have these problems.
Ruptga
Lifer
I already have several pages back, on page 4 if you've got it set to 20/page, so there 😛
1.
So here you've realized that the other guy has a point and you've got nothing, so what do you do? Pull some stupid "what if" out of the air! We could what if all day long, it's completely useless.
2. & 3.
This one counts for two, on the one hand it's been shown here that this won't allow teachers to become gun waving despots, and on the other hand he's pointed out your repeated attempts at setting up a strawman argument.
4.
ZV strikes again! Not only has he shown that CCW carriers are statistically better shots than police, he has a source to back it up.
5.
Ok, not only has it been pointed out that you're BSing your profile for some unknown reason, JLee has shown that you aren't even living up to your own standards of "add something useful."
I just lifted these from the last thirty or so replies, and there's a lot more where that came from! Also I'd like to point out that there are few truly "irrefutable" things in life, there's always at least a hint of uncertainty in everything, and anyone that had paid any attention in a class on modern philosophy would know this. And, like I said a while ago, it sounds like you're just some juvenile that likes to run his mouth and throw in the occasional big word like "specious" just to sound smart, and I stand by that statement.
grrl,
The point you are forgetting in all of this, do you think columbine would have happened if the attackers would have known 50% of the teachers were armed and ready to fire back? No, they brought in their guns, ammo vests, home made grenades, and laughed the entire time because they knew nobody was armed. They laughed and jokes the entire killing spreee because they knew everybody was helpless.
They wouldn't have even done the act if they knew the teachers were armed, in fact, they probably wouldn't have done a damn thing anywhere, because in other locations, people are armed. The fact that teachers CAN BE ARMED will deter many school shootings, even if the princicple tells the teachers to NOT CARRY. Just planting the seed in the head of studens that the teachers CAN BE ARMED will prevent them from attacking.
That is the 2nd amendment of the United States in action. Nobody is going to invade the United States, because every citizen could be armed and ready to fire back at any time, regardless if there is an army in the area or not. The citizens can band together and create their own army.
Its a Deterrent, and my guess, that is going to exactly happen. Plant the seed of doubt, but I can guarentee the adminstration is going to tell the teachers to not carry.
The point you are forgetting in all of this, do you think columbine would have happened if the attackers would have known 50% of the teachers were armed and ready to fire back? No, they brought in their guns, ammo vests, home made grenades, and laughed the entire time because they knew nobody was armed. They laughed and jokes the entire killing spreee because they knew everybody was helpless.
They wouldn't have even done the act if they knew the teachers were armed, in fact, they probably wouldn't have done a damn thing anywhere, because in other locations, people are armed. The fact that teachers CAN BE ARMED will deter many school shootings, even if the princicple tells the teachers to NOT CARRY. Just planting the seed in the head of studens that the teachers CAN BE ARMED will prevent them from attacking.
That is the 2nd amendment of the United States in action. Nobody is going to invade the United States, because every citizen could be armed and ready to fire back at any time, regardless if there is an army in the area or not. The citizens can band together and create their own army.
Its a Deterrent, and my guess, that is going to exactly happen. Plant the seed of doubt, but I can guarentee the adminstration is going to tell the teachers to not carry.
jlee
Lifer
He would have had a better chance, and you would be a fool to deny that. I'll take a better chance over almost no chance- but apparently we think quite differently.
The bad guys already don't care about laws- which makes them bad guys. If the good guys are abiding by the laws and not carrying in schools, then obviously there's nothing to stop bad guys from doing whatever they please...as evidenced by past school shootings. Ever wonder why you don't see mass shootings in gun stores, shooting ranges or police stations?
My point is that it doesn't require extensive training to effectively use a firearm, as evidenced by many line-of-duty deaths- and also evidenced by thousands of successful defensive uses of firearms by legally armed citizens. Read.
grrl
Diamond Member
Welcome to the global economy. You failed to remember this is an open, international forum, and as I said, I would have noted up front if I wasn't American.
My mistake. Check the original response above. Most of my reply ended up inside the quoted box, after the relevant parts.
I looked at that link briefly last night, but will go back when I have more time.
grrl
Diamond Member
I must have the page set up incorrectly, because I never saw those.
I was slow to appreciate the significance of that fact, and was simply acknowledging his point. However, my question was really a musing about rights, what if a majority of parents disapprove? Maybe I should have written, I supposed this becomes another area....
I never made that argument, that's CrazyLazy's.
That post came later, a while after I had already requested some links supporting CCW. Plus, I replied that I found it interesting. In fact, I find it pretty amazing.
Replied to in an earlier post and only you have suggested I'm BSing my profile, which I'm not, I live in South Korea.
Well, I can only concede points 1 and 4 and I didn't need to study philosophy to learn about uncertainty. I said irrefutable because that would support my supposed 'pawning'. I posted the story because I wanted some others' opinions, although I should have clearly stated my position in the original post.
I still find the story a bit messed up, which is as much commentary on the whole violence problem as anything else. I'm not for arguing for gun control, just wondering if this is really the only and/or best option. As brandonb noted, the school's decision may be as much about bluff as anything else.
One example does not prove anything.
How long does it take to get concealed permit in Texas - 3 weeks?
Sharp shooters train their whole lives to be able to shoot properly. 3 weeks isn't going to cut it especially not for a hand gun.
PS - No need to insult me nor take my statements out of context. I said automatic or semi-automatic machine guns. I didn't say semi-automatic machine guns.
Without the proper training, calm and skill to discharge the weapon in a crowded place, the teacher is more like to hit other people than he/she is to hit the shooter.
A handgun against more powerful, faster discharging, larger capacity weapons is almost always a losing battle.
There's two.
AstroManLuca
Lifer
Wait what?
Semi-automatic = not a machine gun. You need a federal firearms license to get a machine gun, and they've been outlawed for decades. Nearly no crimes are committed with fully automatic weapons. Also, nearly no crimes are committed with semi-automatic "assault" rifles (which are NOT machine guns).
Your idea that it only takes 3 weeks to get a CCW permit in Texas only applies to people who are brand new to shooting. Most have been doing it for years.
Like I said, almost no crimes are committed using semi-automatic or automatic weapons. Even before the 1994 assault weapons ban, they were only used in 1.4% of gun crimes, and they were responsible for less than 1% of homicides.
The vast majority of guns used to commit crimes are stolen handguns. They're the easiest to conceal (allowing the shooter to prevent attracting attention before he reaches his target), the most plentiful, have the cheapest and most plentiful ammunition, and are pretty easily available from street dealers who sell stolen guns.
Criminals know that nearly all schools don't allow guns, yet few schools have metal detectors. They're excellent targets because they know everyone is unarmed. I doubt any potential shooter is going to target this school district now that they know the teachers might be armed. The only possible disadvantage is that the teachers may become targets, but a potential shooter would rather simply attack people he knows aren't armed rather than attack a school where someone might shoot back.
And before you even talk about accuracy, police are far, far more likely to kill an innocent person than a civilian is. 11% of police shootings kill innocent people, but only 2% of civilian shootings do so.
All figures obtained from gunfacts.info (there is a PDF document with gun myths and sourced statistics debunking them).
Zenmervolt
Elite member
Since you obviously missed it, I'll quote it again:
Statistically, police officers hit innocent bystanders 11% of the time. Persons with concealed carry permits hit innocent bystanders 2% of the time. You're more than 5 times safer when a civilian is firing than when a police officer is. (Source: C. Cramer, and D. Kopel "Shall Issue: The New Wave of Concealed Handgun Permit Laws?. Independence Institute Issue Paper. October 17, 1994)
Most police "handgun training" consists of a short written test with range qualification of 1 hour every 6 months. Most civilian concealed carry permit holders practice at the range several hours per week. The simple fact is that civilian concealed carry permit holders are, in general, more proficient with their weapons than police.
So your first part is false. In fact, the teacher is less likely to miss the shooter than the actual police are.
As for the second part, are you honestly saying that you'd prefer people to have no chance at all as opposed to having some chance, however small?
ZV
SphinxnihpS
Diamond Member
How is this AT ALL "messed up"?
<--- baffled
<--- baffled
SphinxnihpS
Diamond Member
Weapons are NEVER the problem, which is what "you people" will never ever ever get. Uhhhggg...
AstroManLuca
Lifer
The fact is, the only way to significantly reduce gun violence is to do one of two things:
1. Ban guns completely, or
2. Allow citizens to arm themselves
We can't do #1 because of the second amendment, and half-assed gun control laws are simply annoying roadblocks to legitimate gun ownership that do nothing to prevent criminals from obtaining guns. Look at it this way - part of the reason we have a lot of gun-related crime in the U.S. is because there are simply lots of guns here. They get stolen, sold on the street, and then people commit crimes with them. The only way to prevent them from falling into the hands of criminals is to outlaw them completely and kill the supply of guns entirely. Requiring a background check is one law I can agree with, and I'd also support legislation to prevent the mentally ill from being able to get them (records could remain confidential with a simple red flag attached to people who should not be allowed to buy guns).
So naturally we must do option #2. Allowing people to arm themselves will make criminals think twice before attacking someone. It's interesting to note that the states with the most lenient gun laws also have the lowest crime rates. Whether one is a direct result of another isn't certain, but I believe there's at least some correlation.
1. Ban guns completely, or
2. Allow citizens to arm themselves
We can't do #1 because of the second amendment, and half-assed gun control laws are simply annoying roadblocks to legitimate gun ownership that do nothing to prevent criminals from obtaining guns. Look at it this way - part of the reason we have a lot of gun-related crime in the U.S. is because there are simply lots of guns here. They get stolen, sold on the street, and then people commit crimes with them. The only way to prevent them from falling into the hands of criminals is to outlaw them completely and kill the supply of guns entirely. Requiring a background check is one law I can agree with, and I'd also support legislation to prevent the mentally ill from being able to get them (records could remain confidential with a simple red flag attached to people who should not be allowed to buy guns).
So naturally we must do option #2. Allowing people to arm themselves will make criminals think twice before attacking someone. It's interesting to note that the states with the most lenient gun laws also have the lowest crime rates. Whether one is a direct result of another isn't certain, but I believe there's at least some correlation.
AstroManLuca
Lifer
Yeah, the previous ones all ended when the shooter decided he had killed enough people and shot himself.
The police are worthless in these scenarios. Even when they do get to the scene before the shooting is over, they never go in and risk themselves to stop the guy. They just sort of twiddle their thumbs and hope the shooter runs out of ammo.
The police are worthless in these scenarios. Even when they do get to the scene before the shooting is over, they never go in and risk themselves to stop the guy. They just sort of twiddle their thumbs and hope the shooter runs out of ammo.
Sounds like you have checked both thoroughly, eh? You a fan of the peener?
Depends on the state, mine (Texas) is once every 5 years, however I can attest to the fact that the class is very informative and the test is solid. Not hard to pass if you have been shooting a few times but good enough to weed out anyone who isn't familiar with a handgun.
As a gun-owner, I would disagree that most CHL holders (I just applied for mine) practice several hours per week. I would say several hours per month is most, but not per week.
Zenmervolt
Elite member
Most of the people I know who carry regularly go to the range once a week and spend 2-3 hours there. I probably should have been more conservative and said several hours per month, but the overall point still stands. 🙂
ZV
meltdown75
Lifer
who needs detentions
i got my glock to your dome and now you're goin home...
...to get your Mom's signature on that permission slip.
i got my glock to your dome and now you're goin home...
...to get your Mom's signature on that permission slip.
mooseracing
Golden Member
Glad to see our rights being held up.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 24K
-
-
