Conservatives who warn of tyranny and a police state want armed guards everywhere?

[Vandalshandle]

If you are afraid that the government is going to turn into a military dictatorship if they make it illegal for you to buy a 30 round clip for your Glock pistol, or if they require background checks on gun buyers, or ban armor piercing ammo, then, yes, you are infantile, insecure and delusional.

Nope. History shows such concerns are perfectly rational and adult.

Oh, and by the way, I am a trained uniformed Sheriff Auxiliary Volunteer who patrols the streets in a sheriff's assist vehicle, armed with nothing but a radio. Would you like to make any more totally incorrect assumptions about me?

I haven't made any assumptions. You made it clear you hate a certain kind of people who go to gun ranges and then indicated you are a member of the group you hate.

Interesting rational you have there. It explains a lot about your position!!!

 

[Flopper]

Your absolutely right. Almost all student attacks come from past and current students.

Last year there were 37 deaths due to gun shots in public and private k-12 and post secondary schools in 2012, 7 in 2011, and 8 in 2010 If you exclude suicides and accidents, you're much more likely to die from lightening strikes than a mad gunman. We might just save more lives by putting more lightening arrestors in our schools. Of all the ways we could spend millions to protect our children, putting security guards in all schools would be one of the least effective.


Your Chances of Being Killed in a Lightning Strike - Life Insurance Today | Life Insurance Today
List of school shootings in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

All you proved is that all the current mania over gun control is absolutely pointless.

The reason for gun control is not just the 37 children killed last year, it's the other 30,000 that die each year.

 

[OKTexas]

Has anyone considered what these guards or police are going to do in a 100,000 schools throughout the country? They're going to stand by a door and watch students enter and leave the school year after year. With no mad gun to defend against, they will be assigned other duties in schools dealing with truancy, break-ins, interfacing with police and parents on JD issues and their presence will provide little if any additional protection.

Bad guys tend to go to places they don't think they will be opposed, just the knowledge there is an armed person or persons in a particular place is in itself a deterrent. The Oregon mall shooter killed himself as soon as he encountered an armed citizen, who never fired a shot.

You're attempting to attribute rational thought to people who may very well be wholly irrational by the time they commit these acts. Furthermore, many of the men who commit these acts aren't planning a getaway. They fully expect (and even plan) to die in the process. Whether someone is there with a gun or not is not going to keep them from showing up. They would likely just target that person first.

If you look at me you will never know if I am armed or not, that's the great advantage of concealed carry and why giving teachers the ability to carry concealed is good, the bad guys just know they can, and will never know who, there is a large possibility they would pick another target. That's why declared gun free zones are pure idiocy.

 

[GuyPinestra]

Your absolutely right. Almost all student attacks come from past and current students.

Last year there were 37 deaths due to gun shots in public and private k-12 and post secondary schools in 2012, 7 in 2011, and 8 in 2010 If you exclude suicides and accidents, you're much more likely to die from lightening strikes than a mad gunman. We might just save more lives by putting more lightening arrestors in our schools. Of all the ways we could spend millions to protect our children, putting security guards in all schools would be one of the least effective.


Your Chances of Being Killed in a Lightning Strike - Life Insurance Today | Life Insurance Today
List of school shootings in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

All you proved is that all the current mania over gun control is absolutely pointless.

The reason for gun control is not just the 37 children killed last year, it's the other 30,000 that die each year.

2/3 of those deaths are suicides. All the gun control in the world won't stop them. Out of the 11,000 left I'm guessing 3/4 of those are criminal on criminal.

I'm watching the SB so I don't feel like pulling the stats. Feel free to do so if you like.

 

[Flopper]

All you proved is that all the current mania over gun control is absolutely pointless.

The reason for gun control is not just the 37 children killed last year, it's the other 30,000 that die each year.

2/3 of those deaths are suicides. All the gun control in the world won't stop them. Out of the 11,000 left I'm guessing 3/4 of those are criminal on criminal.

I'm watching the SB so I don't feel like pulling the stats. Feel free to do so if you like.

I'm not a big advocate of more gun control, although I think there should be a limit on the sale of high powered weapons. A weapon that can fire say fire 500 rounds/min ain't for hunting and target practice. Unless you're planning a war or slaughtering a lot of people, such weapons don't make much sense.

I think good background checks would certainly help. It wouldn't stop all the criminals and crazies but it would discourage some and slow the rest down. However, I'm not optimistic that congress will produce any really good legislation.

Putting guards or police in 100,000 schools is too costly and is not likely to be very effective.

 

[Mustang]

I heard that Wayne LaPierre is against expanding background checks. His reason (I won't say logic) is that criminals wouldn't comply with it.

Really? What the hell does he think is happening now for cryin' out loud? Anyone who currently knows he can't pass a background check merely looks to buy a gun through a private sale. That's the point...and the problem. Criminals don't need to look for guns to buy in dark alleys by dumpsters in dangerous neighbors where they themselves might be victims of crime. They just have to go to a gun show and approach a private seller who's not currently required to comply with the law regarding mandatory background checks like dealers are required to run on prospective buyers.

 

[Vandalshandle]

"If you look at me you will never know if I am armed or not, that's the great advantage of concealed carry and why giving teachers the ability to carry concealed is good, the bad guys just know they can, and will never know who, there is a large possibility they would pick another target. That's why declared gun free zones are pure idiocy. "

I beg to differ. I live in Arizona, and nobody here needs a conceal to carry license. When I ride my motorcyle into the desert, I wear my 9 mm on my belt in plain view. If I break down out there, and find myself at the mercy of anyone who comes wandering out of the desert, I want him to see that 9 MM right away. I don't want him to have the slightest doubt as to whether I am armed or not.

But down here, you have cowboys packing heat in the Safeway. I find it hard to keep a straight face when I see that...which is all the time.
__________________

 

[eflatminor]

I heard that Wayne LaPierre is against expanding background checks. His reason (I won't say logic) is that criminals wouldn't comply with it.

Really? What the hell does he think is happening now for cryin' out loud? Anyone who currently knows he can't pass a background check merely looks to buy a gun through a private sale. That's the point...and the problem.

And you think outlawing private sales will deter criminals from buying and selling firearms?

I'd post one of those "lol" smilies but that kind of willful ignorance just isn't funny.

 

[Avatar4321]

No. We want an armed and informed citizenry. big difference. but as you cant actually argue against what we do want, Im not surprise you are going with the straw man.

 

[Mustang]

I heard that Wayne LaPierre is against expanding background checks. His reason (I won't say logic) is that criminals wouldn't comply with it.

Really? What the hell does he think is happening now for cryin' out loud? Anyone who currently knows he can't pass a background check merely looks to buy a gun through a private sale. That's the point...and the problem.

And you think outlawing private sales will deter criminals from buying and selling firearms?

I'd post one of those "lol" smilies but that kind of willful ignorance just isn't funny.

Private sales would not be outlawed. Private sales would still be allowed to continue as before to the anticipated delight of countless prospective sellers and buyers as long as background checks were run (and passed) prior to completing the sales. Who could oppose that change except people who know that they could not pass the background check or people who know (or suspect) that their prospective customers would otherwise not be able to legally purchase a gun?

 

[PredFan]

The suggestion by NRA is to place armed guards at schools...not everywhere. We have armed guards elsewhere in the form of policemen who patrol the streets in uniform and as undercover agents.

The schools, being recognized as "gun free zones" lend themselves to shooters now and then. The armed guards would likely decrease the number of victims by taking out the shooter early in his rampage...or might even prevent the whole thing by recognizing a suspicious person and checking him out.

Who employs the guards is not as important as how well the guards are trained and equipped. A guard with a S&W six shot revolver will be no match for a loon with an AR-15 30-shot clip. The guard needs to have armor vest and lots of firepower and radios that can talk to the local police...plus lots of savvy.

I visualize new companies arising from this.

If liberals couldn't build strawman arguments, they'd have no arguments at all.

 

[eflatminor]

I heard that Wayne LaPierre is against expanding background checks. His reason (I won't say logic) is that criminals wouldn't comply with it.

Really? What the hell does he think is happening now for cryin' out loud? Anyone who currently knows he can't pass a background check merely looks to buy a gun through a private sale. That's the point...and the problem.

And you think outlawing private sales will deter criminals from buying and selling firearms?

I'd post one of those "lol" smilies but that kind of willful ignorance just isn't funny.

Private sales would not be outlawed. Private sales would still be allowed to continue as before to the anticipated delight of countless prospective sellers and buyers as long as background checks were run (and passed) prior to completing the sales.

And you think requiring background checks will deter criminals from buying and selling firearms?

Again, not funny. Just monumentally stupid.

Who could oppose that change except people who know that they could not pass the background check or people who know (or suspect) that their prospective customers would otherwise not be able to legally purchase a gun?

Law abiding citizens that do not wish to register their personal possessions with government. The criminals that will remain unaffected by such regulation, won't give a shit.

Clearly, your idea will not deter criminals from obtaining a firearm. You're only left with the idea of control for the sake of control. Pass.

 

[Mustang]

And you think outlawing private sales will deter criminals from buying and selling firearms?

I'd post one of those "lol" smilies but that kind of willful ignorance just isn't funny.

Private sales would not be outlawed. Private sales would still be allowed to continue as before to the anticipated delight of countless prospective sellers and buyers as long as background checks were run (and passed) prior to completing the sales.

And you think requiring background checks will deter criminals from buying and selling firearms?

Again, not funny. Just monumentally stupid.

Who could oppose that change except people who know that they could not pass the background check or people who know (or suspect) that their prospective customers would otherwise not be able to legally purchase a gun?

Law abiding citizens that do not wish to register their personal possessions with government. The criminals that will remain unaffected by such regulation, won't give a shit.

Clearly, your idea will not deter criminals from obtaining a firearm. You're only left with the idea of control for the sake of control. Pass.

Yes, I think mandatory background checks would make it much more difficult for criminals to buy guns since they can do so quite easily now under the current system. Currently, they can just go to a gun show and seek out a private seller. Or they can answer an ad in the paper or on a bulletin board, and neither they nor the seller are required to follow the background check procedure that dealers must follow.

 

[koshergrl]

What is with the retarded insistence that criminals get their guns at the gun shop?

The whole world knows they do not. So tell us again, how is this background check going to stop criminals, who don't even GO to gun shops except to pawn stuff, goign to keep guns "out of the hand of criminals"?

It makes about as much sense as any of the bullshit propaganda the fascists throw out there...like "killing babies is good for women's health" and "It's wrong to tell kids that ILLEGAL SEX BETWEEN MINORS is bad."

 

[koshergrl]

Crap did I break the new rules? I'll have to run back and check them....

Nope. Thank goodness we can still cuss.

 

[eflatminor]

Private sales would not be outlawed. Private sales would still be allowed to continue as before to the anticipated delight of countless prospective sellers and buyers as long as background checks were run (and passed) prior to completing the sales.

And you think requiring background checks will deter criminals from buying and selling firearms?

Again, not funny. Just monumentally stupid.

Who could oppose that change except people who know that they could not pass the background check or people who know (or suspect) that their prospective customers would otherwise not be able to legally purchase a gun?

Law abiding citizens that do not wish to register their personal possessions with government. The criminals that will remain unaffected by such regulation, won't give a shit.

Clearly, your idea will not deter criminals from obtaining a firearm. You're only left with the idea of control for the sake of control. Pass.

Yes, I think mandatory background checks would make it much more difficult for criminals to buy guns since they can do so quite easily now under the current system.

Zero evidence to back that up. Should work out about as well as gun free zones. But hey, if it feels right to you, let's go with it, logic and reason be damned.

Currently, they can just go to a gun show and seek out a private seller. Or they can answer an ad in the paper or on a bulletin board, and neither they nor the seller are required to follow the background check procedure that dealers must follow.

Which means a law abiding citizen can exercise his inalienable right to self protection without seeking permission from government. Change that and you think criminals will all of a sudden begin following the law?

 

[Mustang]

And you think requiring background checks will deter criminals from buying and selling firearms?

Again, not funny. Just monumentally stupid.

Law abiding citizens that do not wish to register their personal possessions with government. The criminals that will remain unaffected by such regulation, won't give a shit.

Clearly, your idea will not deter criminals from obtaining a firearm. You're only left with the idea of control for the sake of control. Pass.

Yes, I think mandatory background checks would make it much more difficult for criminals to buy guns since they can do so quite easily now under the current system.

Zero evidence to back that up. Should work out about as well as gun free zones. But hey, if it feels right to you, let's go with it, logic and reason be damned.

Currently, they can just go to a gun show and seek out a private seller. Or they can answer an ad in the paper or on a bulletin board, and neither they nor the seller are required to follow the background check procedure that dealers must follow.

Which means a law abiding citizen can exercise his inalienable right to self protection without seeking permission from government. Change that and you think criminals will all of a sudden begin following the law?

Common sense backs it up. If a person who can't legally buy a gun from a dealer can easily buy a gun legally from a private seller, there is NO effective deterrent in preventing a criminal from buying a gun. There are no effective obstacles to his being able to purchase a gun right out in the open. However, if the law is changed, and background checks are required under penalty of law (to both the buyer AND the seller), then the person who wants to buy a gun has to go to far greater trouble to find one, let alone buy one. Some may succeed. Many, if not most, will not be able to get their hands on one unless they steal one or can find a black market seller, and it's not like those people advertise in the newspaper.

 

[eots]

When it comes to conservative partisans, their hypocrisy angers me. It's constant. So, it's not as if you have to try to find it like you're on a scavenger hunt.

But the blatant contradictions of conflicting fears is actually kind of comical.

Everyone, I'm sure has heard the NRA's proposed solution to school shootings of placing armed guards in all schools. Well, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that kind of a solutions lends itself to armed guards being stationed in increasing numbers of public places in order to assure that they're safe (if you believe the NRA contention that more guns make people safer).

Well, I knew it was just a matter of time until some public figure publicly embraced armed guards being placed everywhere. I heard it today in my car on a short drive when Mike Gallagher advocated it.

Now, for ALL those conservatives who worry about a police state, and tyranny, and an erosion of freedoms, how is it that this kind of solution that advocates placing armed guards (probably licensed by the state, and maybe even working for the state) in increasing numbers of public places (along with the idea that surveillance cameras should be placed in more public places) doesn't bother you MORE than a few sensible gun restrictions?

You want to talk about a loss of freedom and the potential for gov't having TOO MUCH power over the people, placing armed guards in more public places should worry you more than increased background checks and limiting the availability of high capacity magazines and/or assault-style semiautomatic rifles.

The only question at this point is how long it will be before someone on the right postulates that this was the "liberal plan" to take away the rights of citizens all along.

as long as armed guards respect peoples rights and the constitution I do not see the problem..

 

[OKTexas]

"If you look at me you will never know if I am armed or not, that's the great advantage of concealed carry and why giving teachers the ability to carry concealed is good, the bad guys just know they can, and will never know who, there is a large possibility they would pick another target. That's why declared gun free zones are pure idiocy. "

I beg to differ. I live in Arizona, and nobody here needs a conceal to carry license. When I ride my motorcyle into the desert, I wear my 9 mm on my belt in plain view. If I break down out there, and find myself at the mercy of anyone who comes wandering out of the desert, I want him to see that 9 MM right away. I don't want him to have the slightest doubt as to whether I am armed or not.

But down here, you have cowboys packing heat in the Safeway. I find it hard to keep a straight face when I see that...which is all the time.
__________________

You might want to reconsider that, if someone in the desert wants your gun or your money, they will just shoot you before revealing themselves. If I come to your state I'll keep my weapon concealed just like I do here, I want that uncertainty to be in their mind.

 

[OKTexas]

I heard that Wayne LaPierre is against expanding background checks. His reason (I won't say logic) is that criminals wouldn't comply with it.

Really? What the hell does he think is happening now for cryin' out loud? Anyone who currently knows he can't pass a background check merely looks to buy a gun through a private sale. That's the point...and the problem. Criminals don't need to look for guns to buy in dark alleys by dumpsters in dangerous neighbors where they themselves might be victims of crime. They just have to go to a gun show and approach a private seller who's not currently required to comply with the law regarding mandatory background checks like dealers are required to run on prospective buyers.

All you have to do is make the NICS system available to everyone. Problem solved.