H.R. 34: The Safe Students Act

How about the NRA step in and buy a six shooter for each and every kindergartner in the country. Hold classes for for safe shooting principles and then hand a gun to each kid to keep in their desks or pockets as they see fit.

The kids can then keep these pistols with them all the way through college for their own protection.

Any kids who get shot along the way over the course of this program from kindergarten to college will just be unfortunate collateral damage. I would bet that if each child had a gun, it would be soon enough that only the ''good kids'' were left with a gun while all the ''bad kids'' would be dead because all the good kids only wanted to defend themselves.

Let's turn the whole place into the wild west.

a reply to: TerryMcGuire

Were you shooting for some sorta record as far as employing the most fallacious arguments in a single comment or something?

a reply to: TerryMcGuire

Except it is illegal for anyone under 21 to purchase a handgun or have one transferred to them. Any other irresponsible and criminal activity you would like to suggest for children?

not popular but i dont like it.
its just how i feel. ive talked about it a lot and thought about it a lot and i just dont feel better.

i know the assholes and the loons dont give a rats ass about laws and if theyre gonna do it they will.

i just dont think more people carrying is a good idea. i feel like its one of those situations where unless youre trained and i dont mean the ccw class, i dont think another gun in that kind of chaos will help.
of course it could. if a teacher or whoever had their gun they could save the day for sure. they could also kill an innocent person. take in all the factors and that is a nightmare situation and a person truly does not know how they will act or perform under that stress.

i feel like more often it would do more damage.
i dont have any stats but i would read them.

if anyone has a link to some stats on how often in a situation like that does another person who is not security or the law stop it or minimize damage i would like to read it.
im sure that happens too.

also not saying i dont want to do away with ccw or right to bear an all that. just saying some of it does not make me comfortable. lets so only the bad guys had them that of course would make me uncomfortable too.

i posted the thread about my very first memory. that has to have a lot to do with how i feel. not scared. dont want right to bear gone.

just want the whole #in thing fixed and i dont know how.
legit and efficient ways to screen. # like that.

and really i would love to actually know for a fact what the # is making people freak out so much more often.
we all think its prescription drugs or lack of discipline in kids or mommy isnt there but we dont know for sure.

there are common threads in all the psychos that freak.

a reply to: TinySickTears

Off the top of my head, the guy in the mall in Washington or Oregon that stopped a mass shooting by presenting but not firing (no safe shot due to bystanders). Armed Citizen (NRA) report has many similar stories typically home invasions though.

a reply to: TerryMcGuire

That's some very nice over the top hyperbole there. Well done!!!

Let's continue on with the gun free zone nonsense, since we've seen it working so well in these horrific incidents...

How about we try something else, something that with a few tweaks and a little thought, might prevent such atrocities in the future?

If this does happen, and I've some problems with it myself, the state(s) are going to have to do their best to make sure "accidents" don't happen. The teachers are armed? The guns, handguns I'm going to assume, must be secured in such a way as to allow instant access by the teacher, but not, most assuredly, by anyone else-much less Kindergartners. That can be done with biometric lockers.

On top of that is training, and certification. ...and yearly, or even more often, re-certification. Imho, it shouldn't be every teacher, as many won't want to, or won't be able to for what ever reason.

Or...

Security, armed, officers with the exact same provisos. They must be certified, and stringent training applied. Their guns should have some form of locking mechanism that prevents anyone but them from firing it. Preventing, or at least slowing, any use of them by a "gun-grabber".

I'm sure folks out there with more experience in these matters than I have can find issues with this. Let's hear solutions.

Like all laws, it's only going to be as good as the enforcement. Who is going to pay for it? Schools can barely afford textbooks these days, much less trained, armed guards with machine guns in turrets in every schoolyard.

originally posted by: Blue Shift
Like all laws, it's only going to be as good as the enforcement. Who is going to pay for it? Schools can barely afford textbooks these days, much less trained, armed guards with machine guns in turrets in every schoolyard.

That would be the government paying that's who, instead of demanding laws the people will demand action.

Here's a solution:

Build the schools underground.

All access and egress doors with metal detectors and cameras. All vents, and auxiliaries monitored as well.

Done.

THE FUTURE IS NOW!!

originally posted by: EternalShadow
Here's a solution: Build the schools underground.

That would make an interesting Homecoming football game.

a reply to: TinySickTears

Here's a story with a short list: 11 Times a Good Guy with a Gun Stopped a Bad Guy and Saved Lives

That, by far, is not a complete list, as this truly does happen every day. It may not require a shot being fired at all, but the presence of a gun in the "good guy's" hand stops and deters a lot of crime in America.

See, I'm willing to bet that there are many more instances where a civilian with a gun has stopped or hindered a crime way more than they've made the situation worse. Of course, that's not really something tracked by groups except other than ideologically biased ones, and their numbers always differ greatly because they have no real standard by which they create their statistics.

You talk about wanting "legit and efficient ways to screen" people, but what do you propose? See, we have the right to our own privacy, and we can choose to see a doctor for mental issues or not. None of that can be forced except in the relatively rare instances of court-ordered evaluations, so it's damn near impossible to screen anyone and everyone without their outright consent.

Let me ask you this, though: Have you ever purchased a gun? Do you know what questions that you have to answer and sign? Do you understand the laws that mandate that there are penalties if you lie on the paperwork? Do you fully understand what is checked during the NICS background check that every dealer must do on every purchase?

The belief that the background checks aren't very thorough, or that it's simple to just walk in a buy a gun for any and all people is just plain incorrect. Here is the FBI's website that talks about the NCIS check system. Of note, here are the people prohibited from owning firearms:

Federal Categories of Persons Prohibited from Receiving

A delay response from the NICS Section indicates the subject of the background check has been matched with either a state or federal potentially prohibiting record containing a similar name and/or similar descriptive features (name, sex, race, date of birth, state of residence, social security number, height, weight, or place of birth). The federally prohibiting criteria are as follows:

◾A person who has been convicted in any court of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year or any state offense classified by the state as a misdemeanor and is punishable by a term of imprisonment of more than two years.

◾Persons who are fugitives of justice—for example, the subject of an active felony or misdemeanor warrant.

◾An unlawful user and/or an addict of any controlled substance; for example, a person convicted for the use or possession of a controlled substance within the past year; or a person with multiple arrests for the use or possession of a controlled substance within the past five years with the most recent arrest occurring within the past year; or a person found through a drug test to use a controlled substance unlawfully, provided the test was administered within the past year.

◾A person adjudicated mental defective or involuntarily committed to a mental institution or incompetent to handle own affairs, including dispositions to criminal charges of found not guilty by reason of insanity or found incompetent to stand trial.

◾A person who, being an alien, is illegally or unlawfully in the United States.

◾A person who, being an alien except as provided in subsection (y) (2), has been admitted to the United States under a non-immigrant visa.

◾A person dishonorably discharged from the United States Armed Forces.

◾A person who has renounced his/her United States citizenship.

◾The subject of a protective order issued after a hearing in which the respondent had notice that restrains them from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner or child of such partner. This does not include ex parte orders.

◾A person convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime which includes the use or attempted use of physical force or threatened use of a deadly weapon and the defendant was the spouse, former spouse, parent, guardian of the victim, by a person with whom the victim shares a child in common, by a person who is cohabiting with or has cohabited in the past with the victim as a spouse, parent, guardian or similar situation to a spouse, parent or guardian of the victim.

◾A person who is under indictment or information for a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year.

The list is long and quite thorough. What we must consider is the need to honor privacy of individuals against a constitutionally protected right, and that's a fine line that no one will every agree shouldn't be crossed at one point or another. It's a tough call, for sure, but in this instance, I think that fears concerning law-abiding citizens being just one extra line of defense in these situations is a good thing.

nevermind...URL tags are acting wonky

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan

originally posted by: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
I don't disagree with the bill in theory, I believe guns are great for self defense and defending others, but what happens when these guns are then used for even more shootings? If there is an uptick in school shootings will anyone agree that it was a bad idea? It just seems like it's going to give these psychos even easier access to their weapons of choice. Not saying that's true, just a thought I'm having.

Like I said, the bill sounds good on paper but there's always downsides to almost everything.

I could be wrong, but i do not think there has ever been a shooting where the shooter was licensed to carry their firearm.

When I got my license, i was told by the local sheriff that presenting my license when detained essentially flags me as one of "the good guys" to the cops, because the background check I had to go through to get it to begin with.

The problem is no one should have to prove they are a good guy.

The American judicial process is supposed to be based on innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.

Everyone has it backasswards.

We're all guilty and have to prove our innocence.

a reply to: neo96

I watch LivePD with my son (he likes to watch it and get pissed off), and am horrified at the various injustices I see being commonplace.

People being pulled over and harassed for driving in areas where the police believe lots of drug dealers to be. That one baffles me. Why would my presence, geographically within America, be probable cause? No wonder so many minorities are in prison....they are targeted for living in the wrong neighborhoods.

The soapbox, grandstand preaching. "Im going to give you one chance, now....if you lie to me, and ill know if you're lying, you will go to jail." They keep repeating this over and over, wasting 20 minutes to find pot. Just about everyone they pull over has pot on them.

What pisses me off the most is the use of dogs. Dogs being trained to attack people are victims of violence. And people being attacked by dogs when they are presenting no clear and direct threat is the worst. I see dogs let loose into homes, i've seen multiple times where a leashed dog bit a detained suspect.

There are myriad problems with the way we "enforce" laws. When I hear a docket announced as "The People vs ______" it makes me nauseated. Especially the pot charges. I don't think that is the will of the people.

originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: TerryMcGuire

Were you shooting for some sorta record as far as employing the most fallacious arguments in a single comment or something?

Certainly. Yet, it seems to me that almost ANY suggestions or legislation that arise are immediately trounced by the rigorous gun crowd as unworkable. Oh, and ''now is not the right time''. All that post was was an extrapolation on the concept of arming citizenry with little concern for being realistic.
The weaponry that is available to ordinary citizens are warfare caliber munitions and have no place in a civilized society. To insist that they be manufactured to the extent they are so that any yahoo can get one if desired is equally ludicrous as my suggestion, yet the NRA insists that they be treated as a normal weapon to sell.

a reply to: neo96

Yep. Good guy 'til proved otherwise by their actions. That's how it's supposed to work.

a reply to: TerryMcGuire

I'd challenge you to hunt differently, then. Guns laws have been passed, and its gotten worse. Why you want to beat 2 dead horses at the same time?

Hunt differently. Maybe figure out why they keep increasing and address the actual cause, rather than just take rights away from innocent people? Since those innocent people keep getting up in arms about having further restrictions on their rights, without even looking into other solutions?

It seems that the compromise I keep hearing about could happen in a different way. If folks wanting more gun control would just hunt differently.

originally posted by: Ahabstar
a reply to: TerryMcGuire

Except it is illegal for anyone under 21 to purchase a handgun or have one transferred to them. Any other irresponsible and criminal activity you would like to suggest for children?

And certainly you are correct. Yet, with the prevailing power of the NRA and other gun lobbyists those laws could be changed making it legal. Strengthening and enforcing laws against military type weaponry for civilian use is most always seen as a step in the wrong direction by NRA so there is no movement to install such restraints. My suggestion was simply just change the laws so that ''everybody'' has a gun, and then lets see what happens.

a reply to: TerryMcGuire

warfare caliber munitions

What does this even mean? Literally any caliber can be "warfare caliber."

Yet, it seems to me that almost ANY suggestions or legislation that arise are immediately trounced by the rigorous gun crowd as unworkable.

Your suggestion to arm grade schoolers is certainly unworkable, yes. I think you're the only one that's suggested that in this thread, but I may have missed something.

extent they are so that any yahoo can get one if desired

Not "any yahoo" can get one so....

a reply to: seagull

These are all reasonable and implementable actions which can be taken right now. And considering the current trends towards a more violent society, ones that might help keep the slaughter at bay.

And yes, it was hyperbolic to the max.