Posted on Feb 20, 2018
This school's not likely to be next target ... good guys are all packing heat and it works
779
19
19
6
6
0
We need to have a discussion, a real discussion, about safety in our schools, homes, and public places. Shouting opinions at each other will not solve anything. As part of that discussion, we need to look at solutions that have been tried and honestly evaluate their efficacy.
This school's not likely to be next target ... good guys are all packing heat and it works
Posted from bizpacreview.comPosted in these groups: 
Safety
Safety
Posted 7 y ago
Responses: 5
2
2
0
I recently discussed this with a friend. Right now, most people are doing what we always do...picking a "side" on "gun control".
Here's my take.
There are way too many firearms out there to make any "ban", even an un-Constitutional one feasible. You can't find them all or pay for the effort...
...It can't happen.
We could increase "background checks", but all the methods currently in place don't seem to work, and to make them work, we'd likely have to start imposing rules that are unlikely to pass through Congress (the guy in Vegas had no "red flags") and may create "loop holes" for abuses of our freedoms. We'd all "like" for people to start raising better kids, for the "system" to stop medicating problems away, and for everyone to return to "common sense and decency"...
...ain't going to happen.
Here's what we can do...
1. Secure schools, hospitals, and other public or private targets. Single point of access/egress, ID required, armed personnel manning checkpoints, no vehicles on or off without being cleared, video monitoring, automatic locks, motion sensors on locked doors, metal detectors, the works. That will cost money...lots of money. Find where it is being wasted at the municipal, state and federal level and put it where it belongs. Here's a thought...I wonder how much cities spend on new sporting arenas? Demand order in the classroom. Don't want to sit down and learn? You can take a ride home with the Deputies.
2. Give those who sell firearms the ultimate right to refuse a sale on any grounds without possibility of legal repercussion. If "Jim" down at the sporting good store gets a "bad vibe"...he can say no.
3. The 2nd Amendment gives us the right to bear arms...not to be idiots with them. Establish a mandatory min. fine of $100,000 for having a weapon stolen unless it was proven to be securely locked up at the time. Make it impossible to legally prevent a valid Concealed Carry Permit holder from securing their weapon on their person at work, in the bank, the grocery store, etc (so we're not forced to leave them in our vehicles to get stolen). Make getting a CC permit dependent on scoring a certain min. on the range and passing a basic CQB course (if "our" argument is that we're a "ready force" of good citizens capable of supplementing security...prove it.)
4. Crack down on the entertainment industry. Actors, musicians and artists are some of the loudest voices seeking an answer...now prove it. If we "don't need an AR-15", we certainly don't need films, music and art depicting slaughter and horror at its most bloody and brutal.
Firearms aren't the problem...people are, and we can't make all people be "good".
We can and should respond to the threat in equal measure.
Here's my take.
There are way too many firearms out there to make any "ban", even an un-Constitutional one feasible. You can't find them all or pay for the effort...
...It can't happen.
We could increase "background checks", but all the methods currently in place don't seem to work, and to make them work, we'd likely have to start imposing rules that are unlikely to pass through Congress (the guy in Vegas had no "red flags") and may create "loop holes" for abuses of our freedoms. We'd all "like" for people to start raising better kids, for the "system" to stop medicating problems away, and for everyone to return to "common sense and decency"...
...ain't going to happen.
Here's what we can do...
1. Secure schools, hospitals, and other public or private targets. Single point of access/egress, ID required, armed personnel manning checkpoints, no vehicles on or off without being cleared, video monitoring, automatic locks, motion sensors on locked doors, metal detectors, the works. That will cost money...lots of money. Find where it is being wasted at the municipal, state and federal level and put it where it belongs. Here's a thought...I wonder how much cities spend on new sporting arenas? Demand order in the classroom. Don't want to sit down and learn? You can take a ride home with the Deputies.
2. Give those who sell firearms the ultimate right to refuse a sale on any grounds without possibility of legal repercussion. If "Jim" down at the sporting good store gets a "bad vibe"...he can say no.
3. The 2nd Amendment gives us the right to bear arms...not to be idiots with them. Establish a mandatory min. fine of $100,000 for having a weapon stolen unless it was proven to be securely locked up at the time. Make it impossible to legally prevent a valid Concealed Carry Permit holder from securing their weapon on their person at work, in the bank, the grocery store, etc (so we're not forced to leave them in our vehicles to get stolen). Make getting a CC permit dependent on scoring a certain min. on the range and passing a basic CQB course (if "our" argument is that we're a "ready force" of good citizens capable of supplementing security...prove it.)
4. Crack down on the entertainment industry. Actors, musicians and artists are some of the loudest voices seeking an answer...now prove it. If we "don't need an AR-15", we certainly don't need films, music and art depicting slaughter and horror at its most bloody and brutal.
Firearms aren't the problem...people are, and we can't make all people be "good".
We can and should respond to the threat in equal measure.
(2)
(0)
LCDR (Join to see)
SPC Willis-Thanks for the counter points; here's my respectful rebuttal.
A. We can't have it "both ways"; someone is going to have to sacrifice something to get to a solution. If those supporting our given rights are willing to submit to stricter standards, just short of breaching the Second Amendment...then society as a whole should also be willing to step up to the plate as well. If our nation is beginning to look like a war zone...perhaps we have to take measures to secure it.
B. Again, with respect, and speaking as a parent...we need to get tough on the kids. Educators are being forced to fill-in where absent parents fail, and some are working in terror of their own students. It may not be directly related to the mass-shootings, but instilling some control and order will free up resources to deal with external threats as well as internal ones.
C. The issue of cracking down on violent imagery is not the same as "banning" an implement which has as many "good" uses as potential "bad". More to the point, I don't think the Founding Fathers had such media in mind when guaranteeing freedom of speech. Again, we have to be willing to give something...or we get nothing. More to the point, I'm at a loss for why anyone would defend the filth, savagery and brutality exhibited in many such media.
Not speaking to your points directly, but in a broader sense...it all starts with how we "train" our youth. When we taught them to sit down, be quiet and learn (because we loved them and wanted them to have a good shot at life)...we also taught the majority of people to deal with adversity rationally and be responsible. Similarly, when we idealized the virtues of the guys in the "white hats" in film, music and art...we bred a society that sought to preserve those ideals when possible. What we are doing now, and have been doing for some time, is to let children run riot in fear of being sued, fired or insulted by parents who couldn't care less until they become monsters.
Sorry to get on the "box"...I do respect your arguments...but sometimes I think we swat at flies without cleaning up the @#$%.
A. We can't have it "both ways"; someone is going to have to sacrifice something to get to a solution. If those supporting our given rights are willing to submit to stricter standards, just short of breaching the Second Amendment...then society as a whole should also be willing to step up to the plate as well. If our nation is beginning to look like a war zone...perhaps we have to take measures to secure it.
B. Again, with respect, and speaking as a parent...we need to get tough on the kids. Educators are being forced to fill-in where absent parents fail, and some are working in terror of their own students. It may not be directly related to the mass-shootings, but instilling some control and order will free up resources to deal with external threats as well as internal ones.
C. The issue of cracking down on violent imagery is not the same as "banning" an implement which has as many "good" uses as potential "bad". More to the point, I don't think the Founding Fathers had such media in mind when guaranteeing freedom of speech. Again, we have to be willing to give something...or we get nothing. More to the point, I'm at a loss for why anyone would defend the filth, savagery and brutality exhibited in many such media.
Not speaking to your points directly, but in a broader sense...it all starts with how we "train" our youth. When we taught them to sit down, be quiet and learn (because we loved them and wanted them to have a good shot at life)...we also taught the majority of people to deal with adversity rationally and be responsible. Similarly, when we idealized the virtues of the guys in the "white hats" in film, music and art...we bred a society that sought to preserve those ideals when possible. What we are doing now, and have been doing for some time, is to let children run riot in fear of being sued, fired or insulted by parents who couldn't care less until they become monsters.
Sorry to get on the "box"...I do respect your arguments...but sometimes I think we swat at flies without cleaning up the @#$%.
(1)
(0)
SPC David Willis
LCDR (Join to see) - I guess I get A and B. But why do you think semi automatic rifles are covered under the 2A even though the founding fathers probably didn't have such weaponry in mind while assuming violent images weren't meant to be covered in the 1A. I 100% understand you thinking its filth and garbage everyone has different opinions, but just because you don't enjoy certain movies doesn't mean I should never get to see them again. IMO that's where parenting comes in. Don't want your kid watching something? Don't let them.
As far as A and B go in a perfect world you'd be wrong, but you're right its gotten crazy so I don't really have an argument against those.
As far as A and B go in a perfect world you'd be wrong, but you're right its gotten crazy so I don't really have an argument against those.
(1)
(0)
LCDR (Join to see)
Here's my "two cents" on the "black rifle" issue and the Founding Fathers' intent...If they had known about it, they'd have said exactly the same thing in the 2nd Amendment. Why? Because they were not trying to figure out how to be "nice" and let the "little people" have their little muskets to pop squirrels with...They were trying to ensure that free people in a free society have the means to defend themselves. At the risk of getting "long-winded", lets consider some "facts" about those muskets (facts you likely know well, but others may not, so bear with me)...The .75 caliber "Brown Bess" was the "assault weapon" of the 18th Century. It wasn't even accurate outside of fifty yards, and was designed to be fired in concert with several hundred others offering a wall of lead balls that expanded on impact, smashing bone, flesh and otherwise tearing whatever it hit apart. If that failed, it came with nearly two feet of sharpened steel that was designed to turn a musket into a "spear" that allowed soldiers to engage the enemy without having to "re-load". Even then, it could be reloaded MUCH faster than the average rifle of the day...making it a "rapid fire" weapon. It was useless for hunting, sporting or anything other than combat; even then...only when combined with others. If our Founders had any qualms about putting "weapons of war" into the hands of civilians...they'd have banned the Bess or its French and Spanish contemporaries, which they didn't.
Regarding media and "entertainment"; We'll have to agree to disagree...Your profile indicates you were Infantry, so I respectfully presume you've seen things...and I'm certain I have in my own limited experiences...that left an impression. We cannot "take back" seeing those things, and frankly, (I know I) don't really have any desire to...they're part of what makes us who we are, and because they were real-we understand the context. There are some great films that have used that "imagery" to "get to" people who otherwise would never understand the sacrifices made at Omaha Beach, or the Korengal Valley. If those images inspire respect, gravity and a desire to avoid wasting life...I can support that. However, if I wouldn't let my son watch a movie that glorified a hyper-fictionalized version of that gore...I (personally) don't see where it has any "entertainment" value for me, or anyone else either.
It's like this-The world is a bad place; always has been and always will be. I support the notion that every citizen is his/her own best first line of defense, and shouldn't be limited by an attempt to make others "feel good" by imposing an arbitrary definition on weapons of war...and weapons of peace. Those rights come with responsibilities, and if imposing a few sensible rules to ensure people meet them can do the trick...alright then. However, I see this problem as more than just keeping 'certain' weapons out of the hands of 'certain' people...we need to change how we think about life, death and the meaning of both. People do bad things for reasons. I have a weapon not unlike the Florida shooter...and I'd never in a million years on pain of any consequence use it like he did. However, if all he could've got his hands on was an eighty year old bolt action rifle...all that would change would be the body count. That's not good enough for me...or for my child; who might just be one of the four or five, instead of the ten to twenty. We have to target what convinces someone to throw away so many lives...usually including their own.
Regarding media and "entertainment"; We'll have to agree to disagree...Your profile indicates you were Infantry, so I respectfully presume you've seen things...and I'm certain I have in my own limited experiences...that left an impression. We cannot "take back" seeing those things, and frankly, (I know I) don't really have any desire to...they're part of what makes us who we are, and because they were real-we understand the context. There are some great films that have used that "imagery" to "get to" people who otherwise would never understand the sacrifices made at Omaha Beach, or the Korengal Valley. If those images inspire respect, gravity and a desire to avoid wasting life...I can support that. However, if I wouldn't let my son watch a movie that glorified a hyper-fictionalized version of that gore...I (personally) don't see where it has any "entertainment" value for me, or anyone else either.
It's like this-The world is a bad place; always has been and always will be. I support the notion that every citizen is his/her own best first line of defense, and shouldn't be limited by an attempt to make others "feel good" by imposing an arbitrary definition on weapons of war...and weapons of peace. Those rights come with responsibilities, and if imposing a few sensible rules to ensure people meet them can do the trick...alright then. However, I see this problem as more than just keeping 'certain' weapons out of the hands of 'certain' people...we need to change how we think about life, death and the meaning of both. People do bad things for reasons. I have a weapon not unlike the Florida shooter...and I'd never in a million years on pain of any consequence use it like he did. However, if all he could've got his hands on was an eighty year old bolt action rifle...all that would change would be the body count. That's not good enough for me...or for my child; who might just be one of the four or five, instead of the ten to twenty. We have to target what convinces someone to throw away so many lives...usually including their own.
(1)
(0)
SPC David Willis
LCDR (Join to see) - I completely agree with you on the rifle front. Ill never be for any ban that removes a weapon completely from circulation. The good news is like you said that will never happen and even an "assault rifle ban" will include a grandfather clause because the ones that are out there can never be swept up with any chance of 100% success.
(1)
(0)
2
2
0
The problem with a head line saying carrying guns works is that there is no proof that it does. There was a gun in the Florida HS and it didn't change anything, and I believe there were 2 armed police at columbine that didn't change anything. We cant point to the fact there has never been a mass shooting at that school because most schools haven't had mass shootings regardless of armed or unarmed teachers. The fact that students "feel" safer doesn't matter as that feeling of safety can be shattered when one of the now publicized good guys with a gun gets popped first and the others cant close the distance against a long gun making their pistols about as useful as paperweights.
(2)
(0)
SPC David Willis
CPT Jack Durish - Maybe, but a gun on the waist of a security guard in Florida did absolutely nothing to stop it so his may as well have been on the moon as well. Also Im not sure how many teachers are trained in gun retention and as their primary job is to teach and many do a fair amount of blackboard writing with their backs turned on what could be a somewhat noisy room, Im not sure Id trust all the kids to not try and take their pistol.
Maybe in schools where teachers are armed and the weapon is kept in the desk the SOP is to buy sturdier doors with a deadbolt locking system. In the event of a shooting the teacher gathers all kids around the room, locks the door and shoots anyone who breaks into the room.
Fixing this is tough though because in almost every instance the shooter is a student and they already know the drills and what they're supposed to do in the event of a shooting and therefor they know how to circumvent those practices.
Maybe in schools where teachers are armed and the weapon is kept in the desk the SOP is to buy sturdier doors with a deadbolt locking system. In the event of a shooting the teacher gathers all kids around the room, locks the door and shoots anyone who breaks into the room.
Fixing this is tough though because in almost every instance the shooter is a student and they already know the drills and what they're supposed to do in the event of a shooting and therefor they know how to circumvent those practices.
(0)
(0)
SN Greg Wright
SPC David Willis - The gun on the guard in Florida did nothing because it wasn't in close proximity to the shooter. That's a problem that can only be solved by numbers. If 10 teachers are armed, they're likely to be spread throughout the school, and a few of them can respond. CPT Jack Durish
(0)
(0)
SPC David Willis
SN Greg Wright - Correct I was just pointing out that its irrelevant where the gun is kept because you could be too far away to stop them anyway. Again Im not necessarily against the idea, I just think there is a lot of quick knee jerk reactions folks have. Guns in the school may not be a bad idea. Guns in the school right now with no forethought is a terrible idea.
(0)
(0)
1
1
0
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google