Teachers Scare Kids Shitless

[Infernus]

Story (http://www.cnn.com/2007/EDUCATION/05/13/faked.attack.ap/index.html?eref=rss_topstories)

MURFREESBORO, Tennessee (AP) -- Staff members of an elementary school staged a fictitious gun attack on students during a class trip, telling them it was not a drill as the children cried and hid under tables.

The mock attack Thursday night was intended as a learning experience and lasted five minutes during the weeklong trip to a state park, said Scales Elementary School Assistant Principal Don Bartch, who led the trip.

"We got together and discussed what we would have done in a real situation," he said.

But parents of the sixth-grade students were outraged. (Watch student recount incident, mother react Video)

"The children were in that room in the dark, begging for their lives, because they thought there was someone with a gun after them," said Brandy Cole, whose son went on the trip.

Some parents said they were upset by the staff's poor judgment in light of the April 16 shootings at Virginia Tech that left 33 students and professors dead, including the gunman.

During the last night of the trip, staff members convinced the 69 students that there was a gunman on the loose. They were told to lie on the floor or hide underneath tables and stay quiet. A teacher, disguised in a hooded sweat shirt, even pulled on a locked door.

After the lights went out, about 20 kids started to cry, 11-year-old Shay Naylor said.

"I was like, 'Oh My God,' " she said. "At first I thought I was going to die. We flipped out."

Principal Catherine Stephens declined to say whether the staff members involved would face disciplinary action, but said the situation "involved poor judgment."

[OneManArmy]

:rofl: :rofl:

that's awesome but as soon as I read that headline i knew there had to be serious backlash from people. No way you can get away with shit like that in todays world.

people don't want hard medicine, they want sugar.

[Kikinchikin]

I don't think doing that with a group of 6th graders is the right way of going about teaching them. I'd be pissed if they did that to my kid. There's a difference between conducting a drill (which in my opinion would be the way to go) and doing something like that.

[Infernus]

:rofl: :rofl:

that's awesome but as soon as I read that headline i knew there had to be serious backlash from people. No way you can get away with shit like that in todays world.

people don't want hard medicine, they want sugar.

Indeed, which when you get right down to it is fucking retarded.


I used to hate "Shelter in place" drills in high-school. Because they were so pointless. If there was ever a nuclear strike or anything of the sort, it wouldn't do anything.

Mind you... it would've been significantly cool for during a lockdown drill to have a teacher or two running through the halls with a knive.

[Peacemaker]

Lockdowns are the most retarded thing ever. "Theres a man with a gun! Lets all stay put instead of escaping out the windows!" If there was acctualy someone running around a building I was in with a gun I would use any means possible to exit the building ASAP.

[Infernus]

Last year we had a lockdown drill while we were in AP English class...

the teacher went out into the hallway and screamed really loud "I'M IN THE HALLWAY! COME AND GET ME YOU IDIOTS!" Returned to the room, leaving the door wide open, and went on to teach his lesson...

[Peacemaker]

Haha. Awsome.

[Setari]

I love my state.

[Hamma]

Lockdowns in most cases will work, it eliminates options for an active shooter if every door they approach is locked. Obviously that does not stop them from firing through a door or wall, but it does eliminate confusion when the authorities arrive if there are not kids/staff running all over the property.

Personally when we practice lock downs where I work, I lock my ass in the server room, ain't nobody getting in there :lol:

[Peacemaker]

Most door knobs can be taken care of by a 9mm bullet -_-. Most class rooms have glass windows in the doors too.

[Infernus]

Its not the concept of the "lockdown" that I had an issue with. It was more the half-assed way they were enacted.

"EVERYBODY! THERE IS SOMEONE WITH A GUN! LOCK YOURSELVES IN A ROOM AND SIT THERE PRAYING HE ISN'T AFTER YOU!"

[Peacemaker]

I doubt they did that... sounds more like they said "There is someone with a gun around here. This is what to do!" Then the students made the assumption that the person with a gun was after them and they were going to die, granted if I was 11 and in the same situation I probably would think the same thing.

[Hamma]

Most door knobs can be taken care of by a 9mm bullet -_-. Most class rooms have glass windows in the doors too.

I will give you that, in a fair amount of schools it is probably like that.

But with modern day renovations, there are very few doors here with windows. 99% of classroom doors are solid wood that can be locked from the inside. They aren't your cheesy household doorknobs they are pretty heavy duty industrial doors, in effect they are made to keep the people inside safe and able to get out, and the people outside unable to get in.

Now, of course if you have the means to get in and the patience to fire enough bullets at a door I am sure you could get in. But not easily. Didn't you watch the mythbusters episode? :p

[MrVicchio]

Personally I think more schools should have "Scare the kids with reality drills" instead of sugar coating everything... but that's just me.


Solution to gun toting lunatics in schools:

If it's HS or below, arm some of the teachers, and train them.

If it's College level, if your state is a CHL state, let students who have taken the time and effort to get their license the right to carry, otherwise arm the faculty and staff, heck arm them anyway.

ANYTHING else, banning guns... locking doors... is just feel good pipe dreaming and does nothing more then make your school a target rich environment for a lunatic.

[Rbstr]

There is nothing, short of fixing the person's mental health, that can prevent these things entirely.
Having a bunch of armed 21 year old kids(who are less than half the student body) on college campuses might get the crazed gunman shot after he's killed an entire freshman or sophomore class, but it won't prevent the attempt.
It will encourage those that snap to do things like bombings and, this is a college after all, chemical or biological attacks.
If you fix the mental issue here, you fix the problem. Prevention is going to work better than having people shoot at each other.

[Kikinchikin]

I would feel a lot less safe if I knew a bunch of kids around school were carrying around guns. All it takes is a couple of drinks before Jonny Law turns into a drunken psycho and starts shooting up a party. I've seen it with knives, I'd rather not see it with guns.

[Hamma]

That's not really an argument that can be made.

There are plenty of people with CCW Licenses you walk past on a daily basis, they don't start shooting everyone up do they? :p

[Kikinchikin]

Well perhaps not, but then again I doubt most of them are 21 year olds who may forget (or not) to leave the gun at home when they go out drinkin. I'm just saying I've been 2 feet away from a knife fight started because both parties were wasted. I'd rather not be near a gun fight on top of that.

But maybe I'm too cynical of people, I'm sure most people with CCW licenses are responsible, I'd just rather not take the chance.

[Infernus]

Arm teachers?


Good... now I, as a crazed killer, know who to aim for.


Thats a terrible idea.

[Giovanni]

I have a solution for school shootings!

It's called natural selection... by wich I mean... every couple of months you release a/many armed person(s) into a school and make them kill a couple of kids... those who survive will learn from the other kids mistakes! :p

[Rbstr]

Now I didn't try too hard...but I couldn't think of a more retarded solution.
You completely missed the funny with that.

[Giovanni]

Now I didn't try too hard...but I couldn't think of a more retarded solution.
You completely missed the funny with that.

My point isn't being funny... I just find it retarded that every school is scared shitless about shootings while I've never seen a damn shooting drill in my entire life.

Thus I gave an even more retarded solution....

I dunno...

[Infernus]

natural selection
noun Biology


the process whereby organisms better adapted to their environment tend to survive and produce more offspring. The theory of its action was first fully expounded by Charles Darwin and is now believed to be the main process that brings about evolution. Compare with survival of the fittest (see survival ).

What you suggest, even in jest, is by no means natural selection.

I just thought I should clarify, seeing as that term is tossed around like so much confetti on this forum.

Natural selection implies that a force of nature is changing a species. What you imply, again I recognize in jest, is having someone just start randomly shooting people. There aren't any actual genetic traits that would be changed by the shooting... except maybe a genetically coded fear of bullets, rather then an instinctive fear of bullets.

My case in point: You're being a dickbag for no reason.

[MrVicchio]

There is nothing, short of fixing the person's mental health, that can prevent these things entirely.
Having a bunch of armed 21 year old kids(who are less than half the student body) on college campuses might get the crazed gunman shot after he's killed an entire freshman or sophomore class, but it won't prevent the attempt.
It will encourage those that snap to do things like bombings and, this is a college after all, chemical or biological attacks.
If you fix the mental issue here, you fix the problem. Prevention is going to work better than having people shoot at each other.

Yeah, no.

Proof's in the pudding, a few years back there was another shooting on a Virginia campus, guess what? It was stopped, by armed students.

Reality says otherwise Rbstr, sorry.

[MrVicchio]

Arm teachers?


Good... now I, as a crazed killer, know who to aim for.


Thats a terrible idea.

Yeah, MUCH better to have a "gun free campus" so the lunatics know where they can go and not get shot back at. Oh wait, that's exactly what happened at Virginia Tech... no one was armed, but he bad guy...

[Rbstr]

So you'd rather people kill each other, than keep the whole thing from happening?

Whatever, Reality has more evidence against you:
The armed police officers at most high schools have stopped all of those shootings? They're trained more than any professor will be.

Even if EVERY person over 21 and professor was armed I could still walk into a class whip out a gun, shoot the prof. and have an entire lecture hostage or dead.

[Infernus]

Its the equivalent of saying "Hey shoot me first! I'm armed and poorly trained!"


I also know many a university professor that wouldn't carry a weapon on a matter of pure principle.

[Kikinchikin]

I wouldn't.

[Giovanni]

Yeah, MUCH better to have a "gun free campus" so the lunatics know where they can go and not get shot back at. Oh wait, that's exactly what happened at Virginia Tech... no one was armed, but he bad guy...

It's called canada... funny how everyone is not armed up here and would you look at that? Worse that has happened? The kid kills himself.

Arming everyone isn't the solution.

[MrVicchio]

You guys fear, fear law abiding citizens that must actively seek out, and be trained to carry a weapon.

But you feel safer in an environment where the only thing stopping someone from carrying a gun into a school and killing people is.... it's against the rules and you really hope they don't do it?


Crazy. I'd rather have law abiding citizens on hand and armed then to rely on "gee guys, guns are bad, let's put the guns away now, it's a gun free zone!"

[Hamma]

I'm with Vic on this one, you guys are tree huggers. :lol:


:love:

[Infernus]

Okay, so I'm a tree hugger... guess what so are 9 out of 10 college professors.

And a lot of school teachers.

Mandatory weapons training should not have to be part of an education degree. And when the day comes when it is necessary, it will be a dark day on the whole for society - because thats the day that we officially recognize just how loony we've become.

EDIT: Here's an idea... we remove Dick Cheyney from the vice-presidency and make him director of nation school security. Its a new cabinet position that specializes in hiring like-minded looneys to walk around schools with shotguns - you know, just to keep the peace. And then we can extend it to society as a whole... Sort of like police but on a much grander scale.

[Hamma]

Way to take it out to left field, don't think anyone is suggesting mandatory weapons training for anyone.

It's simple really, theres a ton of people already out there who have a CCW permit. In most states in order to obtain that permit you must go through a series of steps including training in order to obtain the permit. And that must be done on your own time.

These are people you walk past every day and never even know they are carrying because they are law abiding citizens who have taken all the steps to carry firearms.

THen you put up a sign that says no guns, do you think the criminals even look at that sign? The law abiding citizen does.

If someone is licensed and has gone through the trouble on their own end, they should be allowed to carry on campus.

This is the common misconception in this argument, people hate guns and think that if the sign comes down everyone and their mom will be carrying.. that is simply not the case.

[Rbstr]

I'm not particularly scared of the sane person that might want to carry a gun.
I worry about all those that want one so they can flash it around for leverage, those that take it to parties, and all of the guns that are going to get stolen. If guns were allowed on campus these things would be an every day occurrence.
Who are the students here anyway, do you not think we've got a better picture of how things work on a campus?

There is nothing preventing someone who's decided to go on a shooting spree from obtaining a handgun either. No one does a rationality check on the buyer.

Encouraging students to carry around guns simply amounts to a piss poor solution to the problem. It might prevent large numbers of deaths, or prevent none at all, based entirely on luck. All the while increasing risk that someone is going to do something stupid. It all depends on the luck of having a person with a gun at the right place at the right time. With someone that takes the time to plan this out it simply won't matter.
And now the part that you choose to ignore or never acknowledge because you'd rather have someone end up being the hero of a gunfight(MrV):
There are many opportunities to catch these people before a tragedy occurs. If we capitalized on these we wouldn't have to worry about it in the first place; no one end up dead.

[Biohazzard56]

Haha Murfreesborro is just right down the road. I love Middle Tennessee.

[Lartnev]

I'd get involved in this argument but if I'm perfectly honest I find even the image of guns in a supermarket unsettling. Mad Yanks ;)

[Giovanni]

You guys fear, fear law abiding citizens that must actively seek out, and be trained to carry a weapon.

But you feel safer in an environment where the only thing stopping someone from carrying a gun into a school and killing people is.... it's against the rules and you really hope they don't do it?


Crazy. I'd rather have law abiding citizens on hand and armed then to rely on "gee guys, guns are bad, let's put the guns away now, it's a gun free zone!"

Yeah because up until now that has worked out real well for you guys.

You theory is basically goes like this: "Let's give everyone AIDs! Nobody will be able to catch it then! Problem solved! No need for a cure! No need for protection anymore!"

Up here to even own a weapon you need to shell out alot of money, go through a background check and classes on gun safety and laws... that's for hunting rifles... I don't even want to go into restricted weaponry and CCW... in fact to get a concealed weapons permit... I'm pretty sure you need to have a damn good reason (i.e: ambassador...)

One of the only reason you have a big gun problem right now is because you won't let go of the second amendment. Why do you need the second amendment for? Afraid the south will rise up again? Afraid that the English will invade you?

Let it go, you know the solution isn't the guns, it's the problem. That and fucked up 220 year old amendment.

[Hamma]

Gio spend some time researching countries that have taken up stringent policies on guns and let me know what you find out mkay?

Abolishing guns just means only criminals have them.

I used to think like you do, till I pulled my head out of my arss a few years ago :lol: I am now in the process of obtaining my CCW Permit. That amendment is a part of the reason we have become the great country we are today.

[Giovanni]

I see your point Hamma but geez even with our laws... the criminals don't make much of a show do they? How often do you hear of drive-by shootings up here?

Not very often. Armed robberies are rare as well... and murders well.... we don't have a whole lot of them... even if you multiply our population to your level I doubt our crime level would be as high...

I just think it's ridiculous to basicly give guns to your entire population to stop bad people in your population to kill the good people.... when in the first place the said bad people would not have the guns if the laws on gun ownership were stricter...

Sure there's always the "black market" ones... but that's innevitable and get's dealt with on a regular basis...

I'm pretty sure there's not alot of gun crimes commited with "Black market" guns... most were probably purchased and acquired normally.

Yeah, you'll never be able to entirely stop gun crimes but you can sure as hell stop a good majority of it by not handing out guns like candy at halloween.


Ah and I do agree the second amendment helped you become what you are now.... but it's an expired law that has nothing to do with the time we live in anymore. It's not because a law was good for us 200 years ago that it's still good for us... or else alot of towns in france would charge people a fine for dying....

[Infernus]

Gio spend some time researching countries that have taken up stringent policies on guns and let me know what you find out mkay?

Abolishing guns just means only criminals have them.

I used to think like you do, till I pulled my head out of my arss a few years ago :lol: I am now in the process of obtaining my CCW Permit. That amendment is a part of the reason we have become the great country we are today.

That amendment has been so twisted and abused that its unbelievable.

It calls for the right to bear arms, as necessary to a well organized and maintained militia. Not any random kook with a license walking down the street ready to kill someone at a moment's notice.

Last I checked, vigilante justice wasn't legal.

[Hamma]

Not any random kook with a license walking down the street ready to kill someone at a moment's notice.
Last I checked, stereo typing was pretty dumb.

There's a shitload of people out there with CCW's 97% of them will never shoot up an entire school.

If someday I am faced up with a criminal confrontation, I'll be damned if someone who generalizes and stereotypes gun owners is going to stop me from defending myself.

[Lartnev]

Gio spend some time researching countries that have taken up stringent policies on guns and let me know what you find out mkay?

Abolishing guns just means only criminals have them.

Means only criminals use them too :)

Last I checked, vigilante justice wasn't legal.

Isn't bounty hunting legal in some states?

[Hamma]

Means only criminals use them too
I dont see that as a good solution :p

Isn't bounty hunting legal in some states?
Yes it is but as with anything I believe you have to be licensed.

[Lartnev]

I dont see that as a good solution :p

There is much that you don't see young padaw..... ahem. It's a relative thing, there's probably a correlation between the availability of guns and the amount of gun related crime somewhere*.


*And if there isn't I can make one up, gotta love statistics :D

[Infernus]

Last I checked, stereo typing was pretty dumb.

There's a shitload of people out there with CCW's 97% of them will never shoot up an entire school.

If someday I am faced up with a criminal confrontation, I'll be damned if someone who generalizes and stereotypes gun owners is going to stop me from defending myself.

That wasn't stereotyping.

It was actually over-simplification, and I didn't (nor did I mean to) imply that anybody carrying a CCW was going to decide to shoot up a school.

To elaborate on what I DID say... The second amendment allows for a well regulated militia. Note the "well regulated". That generally applies an institution or organization. IT DOES NOT IMPLY "Whoever has a CCW can and should be expected to be used as on campus security - and more to the point the campus should be littered with people carrying CCW licenses."

I'd feel worse knowing that theres a potential bunch of people walking around with guns, rather then the few criminals. And thats not stereotyping. Thats simple fact. Even the most noble cause is corruptible, it only takes the right motivation. And god knows, this day in age there are plenty of motivations for a "knight in shining armor" to worry more about his "wallet in shining armor" then being reasonable.

I'm generalizing, for sure, and I recognize that not everyone would be like that. But your 97% figure is grossly overstated, either that, or your faith in humanity requires you to carry a weapon - you'll be needing it.

[Hamma]

:lol:

You just don't get it.

Maybe as you get a bit older you will, but I doubt it.

This is why I do not take part in conversations like this.

[Infernus]

No, I get it quite well... or at least I understand my thought process, one that is firmly rooted in logic that quite well applies to me and my beliefs.

And there are people that think the same way as well, older then me - might I add.

Are they not old enough to understand as well.

Please, don't patronize me; frankly, it's ignorant, not to mention outright insulting. And thats something that I plain refuse to stand for. Mind you, I'm at quite the disadvantage for doing something about it, more than simple not posting here, that is.

[OneManArmy]

Not very often. Armed robberies are rare as well... and murders well.... we don't have a whole lot of them... even if you multiply our population to your level I doubt our crime level would be as high...



FWIW here are some nice stats for you

ASSAULT (ok we won this one but you're right there with us.)
#6 United States: 7.56923 per 1,000 people
#9 Canada: 7.11834 per 1,000 people


BURGLARIES
#9 Canada: 8.94425 per 1,000 people
#17 United States: 7.09996 per 1,000 people


CAR THEFTS
#7 Canada: 4.88547 per 1,000 people
#9 United States: 3.8795 per 1,000 people

FRAUD
#9 Canada: 2.61146 per 1,000 people
#18 United States: 1.25721 per 1,000 people

RAPE
#5 Canada: 0.733089 per 1,000 people
#9 United States: 0.301318 per 1,000 people

ok we do have you on robberies but you're not at the bottom of the list:
ROBBERIES

#11 United States: 1.38527 per 1,000 people
#22 Canada: 0.823411 per 1,000 people


now about the only thing we do have more of than you is murder. at least according to that site. so you were saying?

*source*
http://www.nationmaster.com/index.php

[Peacemaker]

stat owned.

[Giovanni]

Car theft and burglaries don't mean armed....

Most of them in fact will usually happen when the person is not aware of it happening. One of my uncles actually got attacked in his house by a burglar once... he had no weapon... my uncle had a bat...

As far as assault goes... we're drunk and we get into alot of fights haha.

Nothing about being armed... is there...

Give me stats about oh I don't know gun crimes? Like I don't know armed robbery? Then again armed robbery can be done by someone with a freaking spoon.

Edit: Oh and we're proud of our rape! It's part of our national anthem! :lol:

[Giovanni]

Sorry for double post but here.

Gun violence > Homicides > Firearm homicide rate > per 100,000 pop. by country

#8 United States: 3.6
Canada isn't even on the chart.


Murders with firearms by country

#4 United States: 8,259
#12 Canada: 165

Murders with firearms (per capita) by country

#8 United States: 0.0279271 per 1,000 people
#20 Canada: 0.00502972 per 1,000 people


That's all I could find there on that site...

[MrVicchio]

Look,

There are two simple choices we can make.

Remove all guns from law abiding citizens, leaving only the government, and criminals armed...

Or let law abiding citizens be able to defend themselves...

I'm all about self defense,but then, I'm not a coward.

[Giovanni]

Virginia tech? Was it a big criminal? No! It was a law abiding citizen up until other law abiding citizens made him snap.

Exemple: What's to stop you from going into depression, becoming a mental case and then going to your work and shooting up the entire place? Nothing. Your a mental problem away from killing random people.

[Rbstr]

Gio, banning guns is a bad idea. Controls on certain kinds of guns, good idea.

Keeping people mentally healthy good idea, relying on people to shoot a person that's snapped, bad idea.

Seems simple enough to me.

[GroundChuk]

Virginia tech? Was it a big criminal? No! It was a law abiding citizen up until other law abiding citizens made him snap.

Exemple: What's to stop you from going into depression, becoming a mental case and then going to your work and shooting up the entire place? Nothing. Your a mental problem away from killing random people.

What's to stop this person? Another law-abiding citizen with a legally carried weapon.

Show me the stats of law-abiding citizens who are legally able to carry a concealed weapon "shooting up the entire place". Once Cho concealed the weapon, in VA, he was a criminal (he wasn't a legal CCWer), not to mention he brought the guns onto a place where guns are prohibited.

If banning things actually work, then why isn't murder, bank robbery and rape banned? Oh yea, it's ALREADY against the LAW.

Banning guns does NOT work. Just some simple research will prove that. Washington D.C. tried it, and became the murder capital of the U.S.

If posting a "No guns allowed" sign worked, then why are places where "No guns allowed" seem to be hit by those CRIMINALS with guns? BECAUSE CRIMINALS DON'T FOLLOW THE LAW.

In fact, they don't even need guns. Criminals will use whatever they can to do what they want.

They are CRIMINALS! Imagine that!!

[Giovanni]

What's to stop this person? Another law-abiding citizen with a legally carried weapon.

Show me the stats of law-abiding citizens who are legally able to carry a concealed weapon "shooting up the entire place". Once Cho concealed the weapon, in VA, he was a criminal (he wasn't a legal CCWer), not to mention he brought the guns onto a place where guns are prohibited.

If banning things actually work, then why isn't murder, bank robbery and rape banned? Oh yea, it's ALREADY against the LAW.

Banning guns does NOT work. Just some simple research will prove that. Washington D.C. tried it, and became the murder capital of the U.S.

If posting a "No guns allowed" sign worked, then why are places where "No guns allowed" seem to be hit by those CRIMINALS with guns? BECAUSE CRIMINALS DON'T FOLLOW THE LAW.

In fact, they don't even need guns. Criminals will use whatever they can to do what they want.

They are CRIMINALS! Imagine that!!

What you don't seem to be getting is that he was a law abiding citizen before he snapped. If the said citizens didn't carry guns in the first place when they snapped they'd have to resort to something like knives or fists.

But in a society where guns are so easy to access that you can go buy one at the corner store... the citizen that snaps only has to turn around get a gun and kill a shitload of people.

Like I said... it's like trying to cure AIDS by giving everyone AIDS... it just won't work. Hell you can even look at it this way: Solving a drug problem by drugging everyone thus not making it a problem.

We have people to protect us and they're called cops. Even they can be corrupt but atleast they are checked on a regular basis. In this day and age even 12 year olds have cell phones... so cops are only 3 buttons away.

[Kikinchikin]

Gio, banning guns is a bad idea. Controls on certain kinds of guns, good idea.

Keeping people mentally healthy good idea, relying on people to shoot a person that's snapped, bad idea.

Seems simple enough to me.

Which is why I'm going to be a psychologist. My job security is higher than anyone's.

[GroundChuk]

[QUOTE=Giovanni;549088]What you don't seem to be getting is that he was a law abiding citizen before he snapped. If the said citizens didn't carry guns in the first place when they snapped they'd have to resort to something like knives or fists.

But in a society where guns are so easy to access that you can go buy one at the corner store... the citizen that snaps only has to turn around get a gun and kill a shitload of people.

Like I said... it's like trying to cure AIDS by giving everyone AIDS... it just won't work. Hell you can even look at it this way: Solving a drug problem by drugging everyone thus not making it a problem.

We have people to protect us and they're called cops. Even they can be corrupt but atleast they are checked on a regular basis. In this day and age even 12 year olds have cell phones... so cops are only 3 buttons away./QUOTE]

Hmmm, I don't know anyone who was born a "criminal". Is that something new? Do we have parents who bear "criminals"? If so, why don't we "ban" them??

Did you know that the police have no responsibility to protect you? They are there to clean up after the fact. Granted, if a police officer is in your general vixinity at the time you are attacked, he will more than likely try to help.

Do you have a police officer with you 24/7?

Here is a video for you. It is staged, but shows two very real situations.

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

Remember, it takes the police around 10 minutes to respond to a 911 call. In my area they say 5 minutes.

Now, a criminal can clear your house, meaning eliminate any humans unarmed, in under 2 minutes, if that. Sit there for 2 minutes and think about how long that is really. 2 minutes is a lifetime when you sit there for it.

You call your police to protect you when someone attacks you. I will use my weapon, then call them. Guess who will be alive when the police arrive.

[Giovanni]

Me because I'm bright enough to live in Canada and unless I piss someone off... I'll be alive for a long time!

[GroundChuk]

Me because I'm bright enough to live in Canada and unless I piss someone off... I'll be alive for a long time!


Ahhh...Canada

http://http://www.news1130.com/news/topstory/article.jsp?content=20070511_165031_5396 (http://www.news1130.com/news/topstory/article.jsp?content=20070511_165031_5396)

[GroundChuk]

Oh, and about pissing people off. I didn't realize that was the reason crime happens. I thought it was because criminals want what people who work for a living have, and don't want to work for it.

I believe that is the prevailing reason there is crime...lazy people. Not because someone pissed another off.

[GroundChuk]

I'm also waiting for the statistics that show where law-abiding citizens that carry concealed legally "shoot up the place". Have you not found that yet?

[Kikinchikin]

I don't need a gun, I have an attack cat named Butterscotch.

[Peacemaker]

I was waiting for Chuk to dive into this one :D

Gio, your rational is senceless. Banning every gun in the United States isnt going to stop gun crimes. Why? Because everything that is Illegal anywhere can be had for a price. Look at Pot, I can get it within 10 minutes anytime I want. If the VA guy couldnt legaly get a gun, he would Illegaly get a gun and THEN go kill everyone. Diffrence? A couple hundred bucks? Or maybe a dead gun dealer.

If you ban guns in this country the Black Market is going to EXPLODE in the united states. Its the biggest market in the world. Everyone and their mom is going to try and sell them here illegaly. Arrests will go up and our prisons will become more crowded.

Just because something is Banned does not mean people are going to not do it, get it, or sell it. If you ban guns it means law abiding citizens who used to carry wont. Now a criminal will come up with an Illegal gun. What is the victim to do? Die?

[GroundChuk]

And you haven't addressed the "criminals" that these people are bearing. I have looked. I haven't found anything about "parents who intentinally bear criminals".

In fact, when I see criminals who get shot, the family members seem to say "He/she was such a good person. They wouldn't have done this. There was no reason for them to be shot"

Yet they DID do it. And the reason they got shot was because they WERE doing criminal things. Should we just say "well, the family says they weren't criminals, let's let them go."

Wake up.

[GroundChuk]

I don't need a gun, I have an attack cat named Butterscotch.

heheheheh

And Gio has criminals that wait for the police to show up before they do anything!!

[Infernus]

Gio, your rational is senceless. Banning every gun in the United States isnt going to stop gun crimes. Why? Because everything that is Illegal anywhere can be had for a price. Look at Pot, I can get it within 10 minutes anytime I want. If the VA guy couldnt legaly get a gun, he would Illegaly get a gun and THEN go kill everyone. Diffrence? A couple hundred bucks? Or maybe a dead gun dealer.


Funny you should say that... because the VT guy couldn't actually legally obtain a gun. It was actually against Virginia law for him to be carrying a weapon (even legally purchased) because he was, in effect, a loony.

Also, please drop the whole VT thing... I know 5 people who go there. 1 of whom was actually injured. They're all very blase about the whole thing.

[Giovanni]

The solution still isn't arming random people. See my AIDS and Drug problem reference. Because it makes as much sense as that.

I for one don't give a shit... it's in man's nature to kill each other always has been. I also believe that human are evil no matter what and given the right opportunity they will do something morally unacceptable to further their own agenda.

If the world goes to shits and it comes to a point where I absolutely need to carry a handgun then yes, I will carry one with me. Until then my shooting will remain on the shooting range.

[Infernus]

Humans are notable for being one of the only species on the planet to kill off their own for no damn good reason.

Sure... Cheetahs hunt Gazelles... but guess what, they're different two totally different animals.

Good old Homo sapiens? We kill each other in droves.

[GroundChuk]

Funny you should say that... because the VT guy couldn't actually legally obtain a gun. It was actually against Virginia law for him to be carrying a weapon (even legally purchased) because he was, in effect, a loony.

Also, please drop the whole VT thing... I know 5 people who go there. 1 of whom was actually injured. They're all very blase about the whole thing.

He was deemed "outpatient" which made him legal to buy a handgun. If he had been deemed "inpatient", then he would have been illegal.

[Giovanni]

Humans are notable for being one of the only species on the planet to kill off their own for no damn good reason.

That's kinda part of my point... if you give EVERYONE the resources to kill... well I'll let your imagination run will I suppose...

[GroundChuk]

Humans are notable for being one of the only species on the planet to kill off their own for no damn good reason.

That is untrue. Chimpanzees have been known to kill each other, even do "organized mob killings".
Which has been filmed.

[Infernus]

He was deemed "outpatient" which made him legal to buy a handgun. If he had been deemed "inpatient", then he would have been illegal.

Ah, fair enough, I misread the story then. I thought there were a few different rulings for why he couldn't buy a gun legally. One of them involved homicidal tendencies, that I thought didn't rely on such a ruling.


At least thats what I thought I read... it's been a few weeks though, and frankly I don't give a damn. Even more frankly, such a distinction is retarded.

[Infernus]

That is untrue. Chimpanzees have been known to kill each other, even do "organized mob killings".
Which has been filmed.

Yessssss note how I said "ONE OF THE ONLY". Although, thank you very much, for offering one of our evolutionary cousins as an example.

Edit: Sorry double post, this thread's been kinda shotgun recently.

Edit 2: No pun intended.

[GroundChuk]

That's kinda part of my point... if you give EVERYONE the resources to kill... well I'll let your imagination run will I suppose...

Everyone has a resource to kill, it is called the human body. Mainly the brain. Then the hands and feet are used to fulfill that urge. Whether they use an INANIMATE object is up to them. They can do so with their own body if they want.

A gun may make it easier. Ban the gun. Then body bombs will be the next source. How many would have died by a suicide bombing Cho?

[GroundChuk]

Or Cho could have done more planning and ran his car into a group of people. That would have gone down as the "insane Cho dude", with no mention of a car as the killer.

Imagine that.

[Infernus]

True,

By Gio's logic we should have banned cars ages ago. They can be used, in the legal sense, to murder (malice aforethought). They can also be used to commit homicide (negligent). They can also partake in that lovely category of manslaughter (that is anything that is none of the above).

Those all happen (or atleast seem to) much more then anything involving gun crime.

[GroundChuk]

I will come back in a day or two.

Gio, if you haven't shown any statistics about law-abiding legal CCW'ers "shooting up the place" or these parents who "intentinally bear criminals" then I must come to one conclusion.

Which is...

You, sir, are all about "scare tactics".

It works on sheeple. I, unfortunately for you, do not say "Baaaaa".

[Giovanni]

I will come back in a day or two.

Gio, if you haven't shown any statistics about law-abiding legal CCW'ers "shooting up the place" or these parents who "intentinally bear criminals" then I must come to one conclusion.

Which is...

You, sir, are all about "scare tactics".

It works on sheeple. I, unfortunately for you, do not say "Baaaaa".

Where did I even say that parents "bear criminals" and that legal concealed weapons permit owners are the only ones shooting up the place?

I did say that those who have easy access to a gun are more likely to commit the said crimes. I did say that everyone is a law abiding citizen at one point, but nothing is stopping those citizens to do something criminal.

i.e: Meet John Smith... he's a worker in a factory but has two kids and lives in a mobile home. He can barely make ends meet so thinking he will not get caught he takes his hunting gun and goes to rob the local liquor store.

It's just a scenario to show you that even someone that has done nothing wrong before can go down a wrong path.

We did have a shooting up here in canada not too long ago... in fact it was in Montreal... guess what? We talked about it for 4-5 days and then we stopped... we didn't go batshit crazy thinking we should arm everyone in schools to prevent it from happening.

[Peacemaker]

No one is saying arm everyone in schools. Everyone is saying that its just going to get worse if weapons are banned.

[OneManArmy]

Sorry for double post but here.

Gun violence > Homicides > Firearm homicide rate > per 100,000 pop. by country

#8 United States: 3.6
Canada isn't even on the chart.


Murders with firearms by country

#4 United States: 8,259
#12 Canada: 165

Murders with firearms (per capita) by country

#8 United States: 0.0279271 per 1,000 people
#20 Canada: 0.00502972 per 1,000 people


That's all I could find there on that site...


yea and I bet your murders with knifes and other sorts of weapons are higher. thats a stupid argument. people are going to kill with whatever the most effective tool they can get their hands on.

Just because you take away the guns doesn't mean you take away peoples urge or ability to kill.

if you look on that site your manslaughter rate is higher. that shows to me that either canadians have less self control or you're all fucking idiots who need to be locked down for everyone else's safety

[Kikinchikin]

http://www.comcast.net/news/index.jsp?cat=GENERAL&fn=/2007/05/17/666310.html&cvqh=itn_gungiveaway

'Bloomberg Gun Giveaway' Draws Hundreds
By MATTHEW BARAKAT, Associated Press Writer
6 hours ago

ANNANDALE, Va. - Openly armed firearms enthusiasts packed a normally sedate government building Thursday night, hoping to win a pistol or rifle and at the same time send a defiant message to gun-control advocates, especially New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg.

The Virginia Citizens Defense League, a gun-rights group, organized the "Bloomberg Gun Giveaway" in large part to thumb its nose at Bloomberg, who accuses some shops of allowing illegal purchases of firearms that later were used in crimes in his city.

The city has filed federal lawsuits against more than two dozen shops, including six in Virginia.

Two guns were awarded Thursday, a Para-Ordnance pistol and a Varmint Stalker rifle, each worth about $900. The winners did not immediately receive the weapons _ they will still be required to undergo federal and state background checks.

The first winner, Jay Minsky, responded with an obscene hand gesture when asked what message he hoped to send to Bloomberg.

"If he doesn't like people in New York having guns, he should deal with New York," said Minsky, who grew up in Brooklyn. "Just keep out of Virginia."

The event drew an overflow crowd at a Fairfax County government building, with the fire marshal aggressively enforcing an occupancy limit of 150 for the meeting hall. Others stood outside and peered through open windows. About 200 people showed.

County officials opposed the drawing but concluded they could not prohibit a group from using the community meeting room because of its political views. The gun-rights group has met in the building for years.

The event drew protests from gun-control advocates and the parents of those killed in last month's shootings at Virginia Tech.

Peter and Cathy Read, whose daughter Mary was one of those killed, held a photo of their daughter outside the building.

"We're not here to have a debate. We're here to witness for our daughter," Peter Read said. "The victims need to be witnessed to. People of the commonwealth can make intelligent decisions about what's right."

Philip Van Cleave, the league's president, said he sympathizes with the families but maintained that some of the deaths might have been prevented if somebody had been armed.

Many in attendance said they were motivated not by the chance of a free gun, but to make a point to Bloomberg and express support for the Second Amendment.

"It'd be nice if I win, but that's not what this is about. It's about my constitutional right to defend myself," said Ron Stuebing, a league member.

The event had been planned for months as a fundraiser for two gun shops being sued by New York City. But officials said that giveaway violated state gambling laws, so the league quickly organized a new giveaway, open to anybody who showed up at its Thursday night meeting.

Most but not all in attendance carried holstered handguns. In Virginia, individuals need a permit only to carry a concealed weapon. Openly visible, holstered guns are permitted without a permit.

Anybody who showed up at Thursday's event was eligible for the drawing _ except Bloomberg and his immediate family.

Asked Thursday about the giveaway, Bloomberg said, "I think it's sick, is the nicest ways to phrase it."

Van Cleave responded that the members of his organization are law-abiding citizens, including many retired military, police officers and firefighters.

"If you're saying these are sick people, then I'm proud to be sick," Van Cleave said.

[Hamma]

Interesting :lol:

I feel for the victims of VT as well, but the gun did not sprout legs and go on a rampage on it's own. It was under the control of a whackjob, lets work on making sure the whackjobs don't get guns.

I mean if someone gets stabbed you don't see protestors at the local knife shop, or if someone gets killed in a car accident we don't protest car dealerships.

[Peacemaker]

Liberals, always trying to protect your children from everything for you.

[GroundChuk]

Where did I even say that parents "bear criminals" and that legal concealed weapons permit owners are the only ones shooting up the place?

I did say that those who have easy access to a gun are more likely to commit the said crimes. I did say that everyone is a law abiding citizen at one point, but nothing is stopping those citizens to do something criminal.

i.e: Meet John Smith... he's a worker in a factory but has two kids and lives in a mobile home. He can barely make ends meet so thinking he will not get caught he takes his hunting gun and goes to rob the local liquor store.

It's just a scenario to show you that even someone that has done nothing wrong before can go down a wrong path.

We did have a shooting up here in canada not too long ago... in fact it was in Montreal... guess what? We talked about it for 4-5 days and then we stopped... we didn't go batshit crazy thinking we should arm everyone in schools to prevent it from happening.

"Virginia tech? Was it a big criminal? No! It was a law abiding citizen up until other law abiding citizens made him snap.

Exemple: What's to stop you from going into depression, becoming a mental case and then going to your work and shooting up the entire place? Nothing. Your a mental problem away from killing random people." - Gio

This is basically what you are saying here.

So, what you are saying is that "no person should be trusted to be a law-abiding citizen as at any moment they could 'snap' and go nuts".

Well, then, I guess we should all be locked up because we have the potential.

Yet you allow your government and police to carry guns. Apparently NONE of them will ever "snap"?? Are they not humans also?

That is the thing....MOST people do not "snap" and go on killing sprees. Just because a few do does NOT mean the rest should suffer because of their actions. In fact, there should be those who aren't State or Government employees who have shown they are legally capable of carrying to help stop these deranged individuals.

People NOT carrying benefit from those who do. It is the "umbrella effect". Basically, the criminal doesn't know who is carrying, so they may not try to do something illegal.

Remember, dialing 911 takes a Lifetime. A criminal can take your Life. Who do you want to rely on?

Gio, do you wear a seatbelt when you drive? Have a spare tire? Use smoke detectors in your home? Lock your doors at home? Even wear steeltoe boots if you work in a situation that MIGHT need them?

If you do one of these, then you are preparing for the worst. You aren't EXPECTING to use these things....but "just in case".

I carry "just in case".

[GroundChuk]

Check this video (it is obviously staged), but these are your options. Which would you, or have someone you love, choose?

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

[Giovanni]

This argument is pointless, you know that right? Your a gun rights maniac and I'm not all for it and none of us will budge. So... I'll just do the right thing and stop.

[Infernus]

This thread got way to depressing. It was supposed to be all of us, laughing at a bunch of bitch little kids and their retard teachers.

http://personales.ciudad.com.ar/golem85/thread%20sucks.jpg

[Hamma]

This argument is pointless, you know that right? Your a gun rights maniac and I'm not all for it and none of us will budge. So... I'll just do the right thing and stop.
:rofl:

So someone opposes your view and you bail? :p

Guy's cant handle a little opposition eh? ;)

[Rbstr]

Ok, I'm going to defend Gio once:
Hamma we've been arguing for near 6 pages. Nobody is going to change their mind out of this group.

[Kikinchikin]

On a different note: I saw a ferret get eaten by a pitbull yesterday.

[Hamma]

Taste like chicken I heard.

[Infernus]

Ok, I'm going to defend Gio once:
Hamma we've been arguing for near 6 pages. Nobody is going to change their mind out of this group.

Democrats have been arguing with republicans in real life for 8 kabillion years... look how that one turned out.

[GroundChuk]

Ok, I'm going to defend Gio once:
Hamma we've been arguing for near 6 pages. Nobody is going to change their mind out of this group.

You are right. It usually takes something like this.

http://http://www.cleveland.com/news/plaindealer/phillip_morris/index.ssf?/base/opinion/1179218274175560.xml&coll=2"]http://http://www.cleveland.com/news/plaindealer/phillip_morris/index.ssf?/base/opinion/1179218274175560.xml&coll=2

[Infernus]

You are right. It usually takes something like this.

//http://www.cleveland.com/news/plaindealer/phillip_morris/index.ssf?/base/opinion/1179218274175560.xml&coll=2"]http://http://www.cleveland.com/news/plaindealer/phillip_morris/index.ssf?/base/opinion/1179218274175560.xml&coll=2


:doh:

[GroundChuk]

:doh:

Sorry about that, the link thing doesn't put the right things in there...needed modified. Should work now.

Or maybe not!

I give up, can't remember what I did to the last one to get it to work.

Just copy and paste if you wish

http://www.cleveland.com/news/plaindealer/phillip_morris/index.ssf?/base/opinion/1179218274175560.xml&coll=2

Oddly it works now

[Infernus]

Ok... then explain to me how in many cases the total opposite happens. My friend Jim's dad was a raging gun nut, until Jim was killed in a shooting.

My brother's friend Adam was paralyzed from the waist down by a teenage gang member's bullets. All over a simple thing such as the shoes he was wearing at the time. He is pretty strong anti-gun.

To say that being threatened by a weapon automatically forced people to go to the "pro-gun" side of the fence is... well, stupid.

[GroundChuk]

Ok... then explain to me how in many cases the total opposite happens. My friend Jim's dad was a raging gun nut, until Jim was killed in a shooting.

My brother's friend Adam was paralyzed from the waist down by a teenage gang member's bullets. All over a simple thing such as the shoes he was wearing at the time. He is pretty strong anti-gun.

To say that being threatened by a weapon automatically forced people to go to the "pro-gun" side of the fence is... well, stupid.

Never said it forced anyone. Just it usually takes something like this. Don't see where I said it "forced" this dude, but that something happened and he saw the light.

To say I said something I obviously didn't is, well, wrong.

I've known people who liked dogs, got bit by one, now are anti-dog.

A friend had a mutilated cat put on her porch. She is now anti-cat and won't let the family have one.

Why? Doesn't really matter, does it. That is the human way of doing things.

The dog scenario can be seen as why one would become anti-dog, as the dog acted on it's own (MAYBE, whole other post there!).

The cat scenario? Who knows. The cat didn't do it...I'm almost positive of that. I'm almost positive it was a human that did that. Yet the cat is the one being blamed.

Same happens with guns. NO gun EVER injured/killed a human without human interaction, plain and simple. Yet the gun is blamed.

That is human. Humans could NEVER hurt each other. SOMETHING ELSE had to do it.

Keep believing that if you want.

And just so you know how I am about weapons, if you have the time, read this. I, personally, am 100%. Most are not. That is fine by me. BUT, if there is someone with a gun protecting you from a lunatic, don't be like a lot of the VA Tech students groveling and grabbing the legs of those with guns saying "save me", then after all is safe saying "guns aren't needed and are evil".

http://www.usconcealedcarry.com/public/83print.cfm

[OneManArmy]

I think the real solution here is to go back to single shot muzzle loading guns.

[GroundChuk]

I think the real solution here is to go back to single shot muzzle loading guns.

I would prefer swords!! I have a few that need testing on those that call themselves human!