traderfjp wrote:Yikes! Greg I thought you lived in God's country. There can't be that many home invasions or crime. Also, I'm not saying you shouldn't protect your home but arming teachers in a school is totally different. In most of the cases that I've read about the gun slingers that break into schools and start shooting either committed suicide or were shot so the theory that we should shoot them to deter future acts makes no sense that I can see.
For the irrational attackers you are right, it won't deter them, but it will enable the school to put a stop to their killing spree earlier than it would otherwise end. At least it would give them a fighting chance. And it would certainly deter the more rational attackers who still fear for their lives and aren't acting on blind rage or mental defect.
If we're going to arm teachers then we need to arm taxi drivers, liquor store workers, bank tellers or where ever there is a likely case for crime. Heck we should all carry guns 24/7.
First, we aren't arming teachers or anyone else. We're allowing them to arm themselves if they so wish, with the blessing and encouragement of their society. There is still personal choice involved here and there are all the laws and checks and protections already in place with regard to hiring of teachers, issuance of CCWs, etc. Most are probably open to additional requirements to being allowed to carry in schools. We aren't arming teachers, just as we didn't arm pilots. We opened up the option, that is all.
Second. I'm all for taxi drivers, liquor store owners, and bank tellers being legally armed if they so wish. Why aren't you? Pizza delivery people, for example, are apparently some of the most at risk people for being the victim of violent crime. Why shouldn't they be encouraged to avail themselves of personal defense tools as they see fit (again, under normal legal channels). I sense a grand amount of paranoia against and a low opinion of the public in your desire to disarm these at risk individuals and the public in general.
However, watch out for the irate soccer dad who beats up the coach or the wife that gets mad at her husband or the teacher who is too stressed and pulls his gun on a student. You better not curse other drivers either - we'll give road rage a new level of violence. I also wouldn't want to be a cop where every dummy carries a gun and is quick to pull it out and use it. This sounds like a very paranoid and scared society.
I agree, you do sound paranoid and scared of society. A large number of states have liberalized their gun laws in the past couple decades. In these states I think almost all of them have seen marked declines in violent crime rates, many well below the rates and change in rates of the national average and states/cities of similar type. When these new laws went into effect in these states there was an initial "burst" of registration, but it eventually tappered off back to normal levels. Along with the increase in legal pistol owners and carriers, there was not a percentage increase in incidence of legally registered gun owners committing a violent crime, it remained vanishingly low compared to the incidence of "normal" criminal/non-registered-holder violent crime (which itself, as I said, fell well below national rates and rates of change for violent crime). (Most of this I've culled from the book "More Guns, Less Crime" and other reading and listening over the past few years, which I'm sure Devil and perhaps yourself will roundly reject as a useful or reliable source of information).
There are now decades of reliable data supporting this, yet the myth of liberalized concealed carry and pistol laws leading to outbursts of violent gun crime among the newly registered persists. It simply doesn't happen. Yes, there are incidences of individual crimes by registered owners, but they don't become more prevalent in the aggregate and they certainly don't outweigh the benefits that have been observed with increased home and personal possession of firearms. And when we're talking about more liberalized CCW policies, we're talking about laws that still have effective and discriminating licensing rules and processes as a general matter. We aren't talking about no-barriers CCWs here. Background checks, character witnesses, often safety a class or other seminars/training is involved, etc. We're generally talking about removing as much subjectivity in the approval process as possible and eliminating other do-nothing and hindering process barriers as possible, such as overly high, sometimes outright punitive registration costs and short license expiration periods, long processing delays, deliberate under-staffing of licensing authority offices, etc.
I agree that crime is real and needs to be dealt with and everyone should have a plan of action for protecting their homes however we should strive to make our society a safe place to live and to do this we need to get hand guns out of the hands of thugs. If our nation started to confiscate guns then it would be much more difficult for criminals to buy guns and conceal them. Ultimately this would make our nation safer. You guys could still keep your shotguns at home and I'd u are really are paranoid then buy a stun gun.
I disagree whole-heartedly. I think the evidence on civilian ownership bans is precisely the opposite of what you say here. It encourages more "active" burglaries and other violent crimes. Often gun bans are not the last stop on the banning train. Many societies that adopt such bans also ban possession of stun guns, pepper spray, and even knives and hand defense "enhancers" like pressure point sticks. And these aren't authoritarian regimes we're talking about, these are democratic, developed nations (Britain is the latest example). Even now, there are states in this country that ban possession of stun guns and non-projectile stunners entirely and I think one (maybe NJ?) even requires a concealed carry permit (for a pistol) for possession of pepper spray.
I'm all for making society more safe. I'm all for discriminating as best as possible the whack jobs from the average citizen before issuing licenses. But at the end of the day the fact is crime will exist no matter what and it is not a recipe for a safer society to disarm that society. That makes society more vulnerable to crime, it encourages more crime (often more violent crime), it makes the society vulnerable to its own government, and ultimately makes people wards of the state for individual safety which is, of course, entirely impossible to provide and totally antithetical to the principles of this nation.