It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

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

page: 4
4
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 02:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by nixie_nox
I am taking real issue with this gun stance that "if only the teachers had guns".


It is abusing the heroic efforts of these teachers. They gave their lives, and protected those babies, dozens and hundreds of them.

They each saved dozens of children, without guns.

So instead of ignoring the heroic efforts of these teachers, who pulled it off under terrifying conditions,using it for your anti-gun control propaganda, focus on how their efforts made a difference. Instead on how we can improve their practises.

Because they managed to save all those students..... without guns.


What you are saying is very admirable, but the bottom line is until every single firearm on this planet disintegrates into nothing, then nutjobs and bad guys will always have access to guns. That is a constant we have to deal with. The only way to counter that is to allow good people to arm themselves as well. If the school had a well-trained, armed guard, Adam Lanza would have not made it past the front door.




posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 03:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by SpearMint

Originally posted by Lonewulph

Originally posted by SpearMint
Would make a lot more sense to remove the guns he used, which were LEGALLY owned by his mother.


Sounds great on paper, but it would only postpone his determination to ultimately achieve what he wants.

(sorry op I think this might turn in to a gun debate despite your request
)
edit on 18-12-2012 by Lonewulph because: (no reason given)


These things are very rarely planned, they're an impulse thing with the weapons at hand. People snap.
edit on 18-12-2012 by SpearMint because: (no reason given)

Not true. Colubine was planed well ahead of time, Holmes planned Aurora well ahead of time. The largest mass murder of school children in US history took months for the perp to secretly place the exposives around the school.



posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 03:53 PM
link   
I feel the need to add this to the discussion:
There are 300,000,000 guns in the US. There were 11,493 firearm homicides in
2010 in the US. That is 0.0038 percent of guns used for gun violence. It also
means there were 299,988,507 guns in the hands of completely safe people.
99.9962 percent of guns are owned, used and enjoyed by safe, law abiding
citizens.



posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 04:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by SpearMint

Originally posted by Lonewulph

Originally posted by SpearMint

Originally posted by Lonewulph

Originally posted by SpearMint
Would make a lot more sense to remove the guns he used, which were LEGALLY owned by his mother.


Sounds great on paper, but it would only postpone his determination to ultimately achieve what he wants.

(sorry op I think this might turn in to a gun debate despite your request
)
edit on 18-12-2012 by Lonewulph because: (no reason given)


These things are very rarely planned, they're an impulse thing with the weapons at hand.


Pardon? It takes much planning for all of these shooters. Getting the equipment together, loading up on multiple weapons and ammo, killing mom and dad before you head out... their mind is gone and with diligent planing, they will act on that plan. Remember the planning the went into Columbine?

Sorry op, back on topic,... beam me in!
edit on 18-12-2012 by Lonewulph because: (no reason given)


No, it really doesn't. People snap for whatever reason and go on a rampage, almost always with a legally owned gun. This is an observed fact. Anyway, I'm not interested in arguing, that's not what the thread was about. This shooting was made possible by legally owned guns and that's indisputable.
edit on 18-12-2012 by SpearMint because: (no reason given)

It's only indisputable in your mind due to your preconceived beliefs about gun ownership in the first place. The guns weren't owned by him. Who is to say the guns wouldn't have been there even if they were illegal? The Mom wanted them because she was scared of a collapse of society, so who is to say she wouldn't have bought them on the black market if necessary? Who is to even say he needed guns to do this? If not guns, maybe he would have ran his Moms car through a large group of children at the bus stop, Or ran a bus off the road, or threw pipe bombs into classrooms, or any one of a hundred other things a depraved human being can think of to kill the innocent.



posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 04:20 PM
link   
No.

I don't know the principle or his background or experience with firearms.

If I could be there with a shotgun then I would rather do that.
edit on 18-12-2012 by mwood because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 04:39 PM
link   
Please guys/gals, I really honestly admire all your passion on both sides of the debate, but that's not what this thread was intended for. It's a simple yes/no question and if you feel like adding why, that would be appreciated as well.

Plenty of other threads to discuss the particulars of pro- and anti- gun, right?

There is no other option, the magic works only one way and that is;


"Do you put a gun in their hands or not?"


We've had a few interesting and well thought out replies as well as some that I would consider off-topic but I understand. It's hot right now, and this isn't easy for any of us to deal with this mess.

But I want you to think about it.

Look at it from the other side as well, would you accept a gun, again magically "transported" or whatever into your hands at that moment if it were you facing that situation?

Forget about whether or not you know what you're doing and pretend that it's ready to fire. Point and shoot.

Stop concocting "what if" scenarios... "What if the ceiling caved in on the guy and stopped it before it happened?" That's all beside the point.

Answer the simple question.

Do you do it?
Would you accept it?

I know I would.



posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 04:44 PM
link   
reply to post by tjack
 


Yes I would



posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 04:50 PM
link   
reply to post by tjack
 


I would just transfer the bullet I just fired from my gun into his head.
Done.



posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 05:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by SpearMint
Would make a lot more sense to remove the guns he used, which were LEGALLY owned by his mother.


You would definitely need magic for that, and that is what socialists are calling for.. gun bans that magically make illegal guns disappear.

By the way, I am not even going to call them democrats anymore. Their cards are all face up at this point.



posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 05:15 PM
link   
I would also like to add, there is no "right" or "wrong" answer to the question I pose. Many feel one way, many feel the other and that's ok.

In fact, some of the "no's" in particular khimbar's reply, which I've re-read many times, have given me much food for thought and even make me question my own position.

I wasn't expecting that.

I thought I was rock-solid with my own choice.



edit on 18-12-2012 by tjack because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 05:51 PM
link   
This is so beyond stupid.

1 stupid act from a nut job condemns the entire Nation from firearm sales... lol this is friggin' amazing.

Tell me, what is next?

Parents, your kids are not any safer if you get rid of all the guns ok? Any object, can be utilized as a deadly weapon as long as the person using it has the intention to kill.

I think we should all be asking why the kid just snapped and decided to execute a class of 20 children. What pushed this person to the brink and what made him tick so bad that he commits a crime that is so inhuman.

You know... guilt trip is a bitch and I know it's much easier to just blame this event on firearm sales. It's the easy way out. The parents and the family members (or anyone for the matter) don't have to face or deal with the fact that they have a huge family/parental problems that shaped/molded the kid into a killer.

Instead, you get a bunch of sheeple screaming firearm control.

So, just out of curiosity, after you ban the firearm sales, what is to stop the next nut job from entering your kid's school and stab all the kids and teachers to death with a bowie knife?

Oh... what? Did you think that guns are the only tools to end a life? Someone can kill your kid by picking up a book and consistently smacking him on the head with enough blunt force to cause severe trauma. Do you want to ban all hard covered books next?



posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 06:21 PM
link   
reply to post by tjack
 


As a responsible gun owner, I must ask if the teacher(s), Principal, et al... are trained and proficient in the use of a firearm. If not, then having a gun would be dangerous and irresponsible. For the sake of argument, let's assume that they are gun owners, and trained in the use of common firearms that can be purchased at any legal gun store. The real answer is.. "whatever gun each individual is comfortable with." As for me, my handgun of choice is the Ruger SR40c, a compact .40 cal, semi-auto with a 17 round capacity. Ruger also makes the LC9 which is a very small and light 9mm, so for the women I would choose that, my wife has one and loves it. Regardless of whether or not the school staff were armed, this trajedy could have still happened. Having a trained and armed person there certainly gives them a chance, but something like this happens so fast, and is so unexpected, that even if a teacher or The principal heard the shots and ran to respond, and killed the shooter, we would be talking about 12 dead kids instead of 20. The only chance they had was if the teacher IN THE ROOM were armed, and in a state with Draconian gun laws like Connecticut, that would never happen.


food for thought.... There has never been a mass shooting at the University of Utah, and there probably never will be. Why? Because students are allowed to carry concealed firearms if they have a permit. In other words, their concealled carry permit is honored by the school. If guns are the cause of this type of act, then logic would suggest that the University of Utah should have a mass shooting on a regular basis. This clearly speaks to the hearts and mind of people, and NOT an inanimate object like a gun.



posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 06:23 PM
link   
reply to post by SpearMint
 


Lets outlaw knives as well after what happened in China. Oh we should also outlaw rocks after what david did to goliath.



posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 06:47 PM
link   
reply to post by OptimusSubprime
 


sooooo........yes or no?


(right there with you, btw, and love the avatar) still though


edit on 18-12-2012 by tjack because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 06:57 PM
link   
reply to post by tjack
 


I don't know. I don't think Guns are the answer. I think all schools should layer the security in the structure. I mean like bullet proff glass and steel doors etc.. I think this incident is going to change all schools. Maybe the staff should carry weapons. I would work on the structure and security of all schools before I would make a decision on staff carrying guns to work. I feel they need to tear that school down and re-build in another location.



posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 07:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Apollo7
reply to post by tjack
 


I don't know. I don't think Guns are the answer. I think all schools should layer the security in the structure. I mean like bullet proff glass and steel doors etc.. I think this incident is going to change all schools. Maybe the staff should carry weapons. I would work on the structure and security of all schools before I would make a decision on staff carrying guns to work. I feel they need to tear that school down and re-build in another location.


I totally agree, as you can see in my post here
www.abovetopsecret.com...

But that's not what this thread is about.



posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 07:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by tjack
reply to post by OptimusSubprime
 


sooooo........yes or no?


(right there with you, btw, and love the avatar) still though


edit on 18-12-2012 by tjack because: (no reason given)


Yes I would... I would give the teacher in the room that he entered a Mossberg 12 gauge loaded with 3 1/2 inch magnum slugs. Actually, If I could go back in time to stop it I would just go to the day the shooter was born and take care of it there.



posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 08:23 PM
link   
reply to post by Flavian
 


Exactly. In turn, a large part of the population also feels very uncomfortable about the fact that there are people who can snap at any moment and have easy access to guns. Neither side is acting out of malice, but both should recognize the rights of people to protect themselves and others to feel safe.

You're right, a compromise must be met.



posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 08:28 PM
link   

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.


Yes. Despite the implicstions from trying to change history.


edit on 18-12-2012 by FinalCountdown because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 08:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by nixie_nox
I am taking real issue with this gun stance that "if only the teachers had guns".


It is abusing the heroic efforts of these teachers. They gave their lives, and protected those babies, dozens and hundreds of them.

They each saved dozens of children, without guns.

So instead of ignoring the heroic efforts of these teachers, who pulled it off under terrifying conditions,using it for your anti-gun control propaganda, focus on how their efforts made a difference. Instead on how we can improve their practises.

Because they managed to save all those students..... without guns.


Well I agree to a point that they saved some....

But this is the perfect example of gun laws in practice. Guns are typically not allowed within so many feet of a school, and that presents the perfect environment for some crazy to kill. We all already obey these laws that mean NOTHING to the insane and criminal. Unless we are going to go all stupid and banned all guns, round them up, imprison/kill the masses who want to keep their guns then the only people who will obey these laws are the law bidding citizens.

So once again, if law bidding citizens were actually carrying in that school would this have even taken place? If law bidding citizens were in movie theaters and malls with canceled guns would anyone actually try and attack at all? This is not a question of whether a few guns would have at least slowed him down to minimize the death toll it is a question of whether he would have even attempted it in the first place knowing guns would most likely be there.

As we go forward and ban gun it does not change a thing other than create more target enrich environments for those willing to break the laws.



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join