T1B

Van wrote:Not really. If someone kills your child, merely sending them away to shack up with Gordon Lightfoot isn't nearly sufficient punishment.

trev wrote:My point would be no tolerance on any crime. You commit a crime you are gonzo. I think it's the way to cut down on all crime.

88 wrote:I am sure you've seen these rifles. They are so heavy that they are nearly impossible to carry. The recoil is huge. How would you defend yourself with one?

Diego in Seattle wrote:Yet you think you can stop the US military with some hand guns or even AR-15's?

Van wrote:Nope, a better solution would be to execute anyone who uses a gun to commit a crime..

Rooster wrote:Having an armed guard or two at evey school covering a single entry point will keep the school children safe for approximately... oh, 10 minutes at the start of the day. It is well known that concerning guard posts that unless there is an immediate threat boredom and complacency set in, reducing the effectiveness of a guard to almost nothing.

War Wagon wrote:

Rooster wrote:Having an armed guard or two at evey school covering a single entry point will keep the school children safe for approximately... oh, 10 minutes at the start of the day. It is well known that concerning guard posts that unless there is an immediate threat boredom and complacency set in, reducing the effectiveness of a guard to almost nothing.

disagree.

a perp knowing that an armed guard (even a bored one) is likely present will serve as an effective deterrent in most cases.

It's just waaay too easy for some sick fuck to walk in off the street and pull a stunt like this.

I'm not saying a guard would prevent a determined shooter, just that it's the bare minimum that should be done to protect schools, well worth the 40k a year or whatever it would cost.

War Wagon wrote:

Rooster wrote:Having an armed guard or two at evey school covering a single entry point will keep the school children safe for approximately... oh, 10 minutes at the start of the day. It is well known that concerning guard posts that unless there is an immediate threat boredom and complacency set in, reducing the effectiveness of a guard to almost nothing.

disagree.

a perp knowing that an armed guard (even a bored one) is likely present will serve as an effective deterrent in most cases.

It's just waaay too easy for some sick fuck to walk in off the street and pull a stunt like this.

I'm not saying a guard would prevent a determined shooter, just that it's the bare minimum that should be done to protect schools, well worth the 40k a year or whatever it would cost.

War Wagon wrote:nice double post there, H_retarded4ever.

For damn sure I wouldn't have you guarding my child's school.

War Wagon wrote:
There should be one door that allows access into a school, manned by an armed guard or 2 at all times.

Extreme measures are called for, this society just keeps getting sicker.

H4ever wrote:

War Wagon wrote:

Rooster wrote:Having an armed guard or two at evey school covering a single entry point will keep the school children safe for approximately... oh, 10 minutes at the start of the day. It is well known that concerning guard posts that unless there is an immediate threat boredom and complacency set in, reducing the effectiveness of a guard to almost nothing.

disagree.

a perp knowing that an armed guard (even a bored one) is likely present will serve as an effective deterrent in most cases.

It's just waaay too easy for some sick fuck to walk in off the street and pull a stunt like this.

I'm not saying a guard would prevent a determined shooter, just that it's the bare minimum that should be done to protect schools, well worth the 40k a year or whatever it would cost.

40K a year, eh? Where you gonna find a competent guard, certified to carry a weapon in his duties for that price? Maybe local staffing agencies can find some unmotivated fuck with rap sheet chock full of questionable behavior and conduct to protect our children while he plays games on his smart phone because he just don't give a fuck about his low-paying job with shit benefits while mouthy little pricks walk by him daily and snicker at him?

But, then again, he might unionize and ask for some decent benefits and that would be soooo wrong and greedy of him. Fuck him....the staffing agencies have more just like him to carry a weapon and "protect" our children.

War Wagon wrote:I'm more concerned about protecting the kids.

Arch Angel wrote:I am a 2nd Amendment person

Diego in Seattle wrote:

War Wagon wrote:I'm more concerned about protecting the kids.

It was because of teacher Victoria Soto that more children survived.

mvscal wrote:

Diego in Seattle wrote:Yet you think you can stop the US military with some hand guns or even AR-15's?

Yep. It worked gangbusters for partisans in the Soviet Union during WW2. It's working pretty well for the Taliban in Afghanistan as well. They've got us cowering in our bases while mark time until we leave.

Diego in Seattle wrote:Doesn't everyone have those around here?

Mace wrote:Math teacher?



Vice Principal?

88 wrote:

MiketheangrydrunkenCUfan wrote:The saddest part is, at 40k/year he'd still be making more than the teachers he's ostensibly protecting.

You are kidding, right? My wife is a teacher. Her benefits are worth at least $20K per year alone. And her salary after five years exceeded $40K. Not particularly bad for 182 work days per year.

88 wrote:

MiketheangrydrunkenCUfan wrote:The saddest part is, at 40k/year he'd still be making more than the teachers he's ostensibly protecting.

You are kidding, right? My wife is a teacher. Her benefits are worth at least $20K per year alone. And her salary after five years exceeded $40K. Not particularly bad for 182 work days per year.

88 wrote: In any event, perhaps my proposals err too much on the side opposite personal freedom, which is generally the wrong side of the equation to be on in my book.

Any thoughts?

88 wrote:

Any thoughts?

KC Scott wrote:to shoot the guy with the knife or the tire iron

duh......

KC Scott wrote:to shoot the guy with the knife or the tire iron

duh......

88 wrote:Getting back to the topic at hand, I might have been a bit hasty with my proposal to limit the type and amount of guns in the hands of the public. I mentioned to one of the people I go shooting with quite frequently that I thought there ought to be limits on the types and amounts of guns owned by citizens of a civilized nation. I said that I thought there was little need for assault-type weapons, unless they were being used by militias to defend themselves from a tyrranical government, which I said I thought was very unlikely. He said I was looking at it all wrong, and that the reason why people should continue to be permitted to own such weapons is "what happens if the government collapses, like it did in the Soviet Union and in other places around the globe and there is no military or police force to protect you, your neighbors and your property?" He said he isn't afraid of the government because US soldiers would not carry out armed attacks against innocent people. He said he doubted any weapons he had would be effective if the government came after him. But he said if the shit hits the fan and the US government collapsed for some reason, he could see Americans joining together in small bands to protect themselves and their families from roving bands of other armed Americans. I also find that to be a very remote possibility. But less remote than the government coming down on everyone unless they are armed to the teeth. In any event, perhaps my proposals err too much on the side opposite personal freedom, which is generally the wrong side of the equation to be on in my book.

Any thoughts?

88 wrote:Getting back to the topic at hand, I might have been a bit hasty with my proposal to limit the type and amount of guns in the hands of the public. I mentioned to one of the people I go shooting with quite frequently that I thought there ought to be limits on the types and amounts of guns owned by citizens of a civilized nation. I said that I thought there was little need for assault-type weapons, unless they were being used by militias to defend themselves from a tyrranical government, which I said I thought was very unlikely. He said I was looking at it all wrong, and that the reason why people should continue to be permitted to own such weapons is "what happens if the government collapses, like it did in the Soviet Union and in other places around the globe and there is no military or police force to protect you, your neighbors and your property?" He said he isn't afraid of the government because US soldiers would not carry out armed attacks against innocent people. He said he doubted any weapons he had would be effective if the government came after him. But he said if the shit hits the fan and the US government collapsed for some reason, he could see Americans joining together in small bands to protect themselves and their families from roving bands of other armed Americans. I also find that to be a very remote possibility. But less remote than the government coming down on everyone unless they are armed to the teeth. In any event, perhaps my proposals err too much on the side opposite personal freedom, which is generally the wrong side of the equation to be on in my book.

Any thoughts?