Set the gun debate aside for a moment and answer one question please...

Originally posted by detachedindividual

Originally posted by smyleegrl
What I've been pondering lately is some sort of bullet-proof metal doors that can seal off a section of every classroom. They come down from the ceiling and can only be raised via special code. Kids would then be in a safe area. And just wait for rescue.

I don't know the logistics of this, or if its even feasible...but I'd rather do this than carry a gun.

I suggested panic rooms between classes.

If a teacher hears a shot, they hit a panic button, the doors of the panic rooms all open (they could be disguised behind pin boards etc) all internal doors of the school close, all kids from two classes go into the room between and hit a button, sealing the panic room doors. It's equipped with a considerable medical kit, supplies to last three days, a phone directly connected to the local police chief and control room, which is immediately manned by all available non-responding officers (could be 911 staff).

The same time the panic button is pressed an audible "shooter" alarm sounds in the local police, fire service and hospitals. All are immediately on route or preparing for casualties.

The internal doors of the school all have bullet proof glass and internal shielding, with reinforcement against explosives.

This would be expensive to do in every single school, but I think the NRA should pay for it.

This is exactly the problem that we run into when we start reacting emotionally to the symptoms and don't address the root cause(s). We can turn our schools into maximum security prisons and our children will be perfectly safe. Until they go to the mall. So we fortify the malls. And, again, our children will be perfectly safe. Until they go to church......................

reply to post by Doc Gator


Which is where properly enforcing the legislation would come in.

I really do not see why both cannot be done (proper safe areas and enforced legislation). It is obvious that huge swathes of the USA do not wish to relinquish their weapons. As such, some form of compromise will have to be reached.

reply to post by Flavian


You won't get an argument from me on that point. I think that if you use a firearm in the commission of a felony you should get natural life.

I also think that when we identify laws that do not work or have the opposite effect, we need to get rid of them.

Originally posted by smyleegrl
reply to post by thisguyrighthere

 

Extra responsibility for those of us who aren't recreational shooters or have concealed and carry permits.

Then why would those teachers choose to suddenly arm themselves?

I think some people arent getting that the option to do a thing is not the same as a mandate to do a thing.

Would I mandate every untrained teacher who didnt want anything to do with guns carry a gun? Of course not.
Would I allow a trained carrier who carries day in and day out who happens to be a teacher carry while at work? Absolutely.

reply to post by tjack


Absolutely not.

What I would do though if I had a superpower like that is snap my fingers to appear in front of Thomas Jefferson, John Adams and Thomas Paine and tell them to delete the bit about a right to bear arms.

This is exactly the problem that we run into when we start reacting emotionally to the symptoms and don't address the root cause(s). We can turn our schools into maximum security prisons and our children will be perfectly safe. Until they go to the mall. So we fortify the malls. And, again, our children will be perfectly safe. Until they go to church......................

There's a difference between preparing for an unlikely event, and living in fear. I agree,, a panic room may not ever be needed, but if it should be, it's there.

Originally posted by smyleegrl

This is exactly the problem that we run into when we start reacting emotionally to the symptoms and don't address the root cause(s). We can turn our schools into maximum security prisons and our children will be perfectly safe. Until they go to the mall. So we fortify the malls. And, again, our children will be perfectly safe. Until they go to church......................

There's a difference between preparing for an unlikely event, and living in fear. I agree,, a panic room may not ever be needed, but if it should be, it's there.

The exact same argument can be made for firearms. And parachutes.

reply to post by Doc Gator


So.....don't bother packing your parachute?

reply to post by SpearMint


They may have been

LEGALLY owned by his mother.

but he was carrying them illegally and he went into a gun free zone with them and murdered people.
If he killed a cop and used a cop's gun, would you still shift the blame to the gun?

Back to the OP, YES I would.
It has saved lives in the past, in fact every case where a law abiding citizen had a gun and stopped the shooter the "body count" was less then when police stopped the shooter. (on average)

reply to post by smyleegrl


"I would rather have it and not need it, then need it and not have it"
2end

reply to post by ObjectZero


I would not feel bad, who cares about a job?

If I could save only one of those children, I would give up my life never mind a job!

How are mentally disturbed young men being identified and set up to be the patsy in domestic covert actions designed for 'problem-reaction-solution' programming of lawmakers and the general public in order to further the 'New World Order' agenda?

Early reports from Sandy Hook mentioned two or multiple shooters involved. This was reduced to one 'lone nut' as was the case in Aurora and many, many cases going all the way back to the original 'lone nut' in modern history: Lee Harvey Oswald.

Covert actions are usually set up in ways that one 'lone nut' (who fits the profile) is blamed and then it's an open and quickly shut case, case closed. This m.o. has been done successfully for years, RFK hit, MLK hit, mass shootings, John Lennon hit, you name it. As soon as lawmakers and the public are satisfied that the 'lone nut' in the media did it all by his lonesome, the secret agenda moves forward. Even in the case of 9/11, Osama bin Laden emerged quickly as the media's 'lone nut' just as Saddam Hussein had been the 'lone nut' who gave the USA 'no choice' but to invade Iraq and in so doing make the military-industrial complex and defense contractors much wealthier in the process.

I don't have any evidence that Sandy Hook was a covert op. But I do not rule it out, seeing as there is now such a big push to ban at least some types of firearms.

reply to post by smyleegrl


I was attempting to point out (probably poorly) that although we should be talking about solutions, we have to keep an eye on the actual cause of the problem. They may make us feel safer (such as carrying a parachute on a commercial flight) but do nothing to address the root cause.

reply to post by tjack

Yes, better yet...I would transform myself with a gun to the scene.

reply to post by SpearMint


What then? In a few years time we would be looking at school bombings instead of school shootings.

Not sure on the panic room, the whole idea on a panic room is being able to make it to it in a panic. I don't see that happening with a bunch of kids. It also opens up the chance of getting attacked trying to get to the panic room unless you give every room one. But that would cut in to classroom space and there would be a strict limit on how many people could be in a room at any time to make it work.

I'd like to see them stop building school like death traps for events like this. Just make everyone have an easy out, does not have to be a door just more then one way out of the room, that you can file more than five people at one time two at the minimum and that you can run drills for just like fire drilled. As an added bonus you could use them in case of fire.

There are a lot of threads relating to gun control and this tragic event, so this one is as good as any to put my thought, I guess.

What does it matter? We could construct hypotheticals til the cows come home, but the historical context we find ourselves in is that guns exist and their rudimentary precursors were developed some 6 or 700 years ago. Can't go back...

I'm sure a Mongol warrior with a bow and arrow or sword could have slaughtered that many people if Newtown were in such a context, right?

And, somewhere on the Russian steppe or in Poland you could probably walk across the mass grave of little children who lived back then and were killed like that.

Prohibition does nothing but cause more trouble, more crime, more violence. Look at alcohol prohibition. Look at the war on drugs. Guns are regulated as is and even the government herself has trouble following the laws and not engaging in black market activities.

Make guns illegal and you'll have the CIA buying Afghani heroine to sell in Mexico to buy guns from Cartel bosses to resell to gangs in East LA, Chicago, detroit, NYC and Miami in no time. Only in that scenario, we'll be seeing more automatics, more heavy firepower, more brazen behavior and lack of respect for life and compassion for victims.

The problem is the system, the money, the profits-above-all-else mentality that is not only held by our corporations (where burning Bangladeshi sweatshopworkers are less important than getting Walmart brand hipster jeans for 18 bucks). Guns are incidental and not the crux of the issue. The government, through nepotism (well, really corporatism, because the relationship of the secretary or czar that gets in is not by blood, but by brand) and lobbying is just as profit driven as corporations, no matter the name or what they sell.

Originally posted by tjack
You don't even have to answer it with a post, just think about it and answer yourself.

If you could snap your fingers, and magically transport a gun through time and into the hands of the principal and/or teachers of Sandy Hook as the tragedy was starting to unfold, "Would you do it?"

Be honest with yourself. Would you?

Thanks in advance for your courtesy.

OK Ill play, of course I would

but if I had that magic power I think Id use it to go back and take the gun away from the kid

Originally posted by Doc Gator
Yes. Without hesitation.

The big question is: If one of the administrators or teachers had been armed (illegally due to it being a "gun free zone") and had stopped the shooter, would anyone be calling for their prosecution? "Gun free zones", although well intentioned, have failed miserably and created the very conditions that they were intended to prevent.

edit on 18-12-2012 by Doc Gator because: punctuation

Just think if we were put in this position (gun free) nationally, which is what a lot of people are trying to suggest is the best course of action. I would want the principle to have the pistol to stop this tranced lunatic.

No! If the principal had no idea how to use the gun then she now presents a threat to others. Kill her take the gun. He kills her gets enraged and kills more. She miss and hit someone else. If I could transport a cop or something sure. But just a gun? Nope just a gun wouldn't have done anything if she still couldn't stop him with it.