TexasCHLforum.com

03Lightningrocks wrote:

K.Mooneyham wrote: ...."Abraham"... So, if some 15, 16, 17 year old teenager takes a gun to school and proceeds to randomly apply said gun against his fellow teens, would it not be the better thing for an armed teacher, properly vetted and trained, to do what is necessary at that moment to conclude the situation and at least minimize the loss of life? I don't mean to be flippant or unnecessarily inflammatory, but this IS life and death we are discussing here.

I absolutely agree.There are two lines of battle here. The first, in my mind, is to start putting metal detectors in every school in America...no matter the grade level. We do it for government agencies and court houses but not our children??? The second is to have armed trained teachers or/and security personal to stop an incident as quickly as possible to minimize the carnage.


It would also help if there were some real enforcement of the gun laws that are already on the books. The libtards love making laws that force everyone to live as they feel is necessary but they have no clue on enforcing those laws. What is that all about??? More laws ain't the answer but sure as tootin, some libtard is going to attempt more laws.

Just to be clear, it was "Texsquatch" that K.Mooneyham was responding to. "Abraham" hasn't replied in this thread yet.

Carry on.

BTW, I mostly agree with you.......on a strictly emotional level. But the libertarian part of me hates to see all those metal detectors. Then entry to the schools becomes like a TSA ordeal. Yes, it would stop at least most guns from being snuck onto campuses, but at what long term cost to society? When you teach children that metal detectors are necessary to safety and the maintenance of the public order, then they grow up expecting to see them everywhere as adults.....and they'll want to know why they aren't. They'll want government to place them in supermarkets, theaters, and at every street corner, etc., etc., along with surveillance cameras and microphones. Pretty soon, we've become Great Britain, writ even larger.

I submit that there is a chance that kids who would do this at a tender age will likely grow up into adults who will do this......and they'll have even easier access to firearms then. It is a terrible tragedy, but if you can't talk such a kid down off the ledge before he does something terrible, then you're faced with a difficult decision to put him down. The metal detector is like the Sword of Damocles. It may attend a short term sense of safety in a school, but it may also attend a long term loss of freedom for society at large.

Would it not be FAR better to teach firearms safety in the public schools? Children have killed children from time immemorial: http://www.trutv.com/library/crime/seri ... dex_1.html. Teaching them to expect and desire a police state is not the best longterm solution.

And no, I do not propose that the murder of children by other children is acceptable. I'm only arguing that no decision about what to do about it will have been properly thought out unless we take into consideration what it teaches our children, and the impact of that on the future of our society. It isn't a simple answer.

cb1000rider wrote:

Oldgringo wrote:It seems that some of these so-called "Gun Free" safe zones are actually the least safe places to be...or am I stating the obvious?

I understand your point. I think it's more about the media having written a "how to" manual for kids that are seeking the maximum amount of attention. It's copy-catting the copy-cats. And it's awful.

It's actually a "circle of death." The shooter shoots; the media sensationalizes; the copy-catter shoots; the media sensationalizes and suggests that its time for "sensible" laws; the copy-copy-catter shoots; the media demands that politicians so something, and politicians beat the drum for "sensible" laws; the commies get their panties in a twist; the NRA rides to the rescue and reason eventually prevails. Calm prevails for a while, during which time Diane Feinstein prepares a new bill to crush the 2nd Amendment......and because she knows that it is unconstitutional at its core and unacceptable to the majority of the voters and consequently won't ever have a chance of passage during a calm spell, she waits, Shelob-like in her lair, until the next "crisis" so that she can file the bill. Then begins another 6-12 months of frenzied accusations, liberals asserting that conservatives and libertarians love their guns more than they love their own children, lambasting America's "gun culture," and boasting (falsely) about the success of gun-repression in countries like Great Britain, charges of paranoia, declamations that the Founders could not have conceived of an AR15 and therefore the Constitution only protects our right to own a musket, etc., etc., etc., ad nauseum, until another period of calm eventually prevails.

6-12 months later, some new deluded crazy person or immature child brings a gun to school, and the cycle starts all over again. But each time, the fight gets longer, more dramatic, and more exhausting.

You see, they don't really care if they get guns banned now, or 10 years from now. They are patient. They know that if they can just keep up the assault in the media for long enough, the American people will eventually grow exhausted and give in. It's what democrats do. They do this, because they fundamentally love a big-brother run society than they do individual liberty.