School Obama's Daughters Attend Has 11 Armed Guards

page: 15
32
<< 12  13  14   >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 29 2012 @ 12:28 AM
link   
reply to post by bknapple32
 


I don't care about statistics. It is concepts that count more. Logically, I knew before my brother got killed that gun free zones would get people killed. There happens to be statistics that agree, and some that would disagree. Statistics can be twisted, and should only be used where there is CLEAR data - you will find none on guns or gun crime.

Do you need evidence of this? I could get links on how much trouble the FBI got in for this.

Statistics always get twisted, ESPECIALLY gun crime.




posted on Dec, 29 2012 @ 12:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by Indigo5

Originally posted by NavyDoc

"High velocity" is not a technical specification of the AR-15. "High velocity" compared to what? I bet that, right now, without googling, you don't even know what the velocity of the round is.


Silly rabbit...I posted it over a week ago...Wrong on both fronts.

Bushmaster AR-15 used by Adam Lanza
Rapid fire Semi-Automatic
Ammunition: .223 Remington; 55 grain bullet @ 3240 feet per second.
Muzzle Energy: 1282 foot-pounds.
Capacity: Standard 30 round magazine, 60 or 100 Round clips available, but with a greater likelihood of jamming the higher you go.
post by Indigo5




So proove you didn't google that? looks like you did.

Past that, any knowledgable person in guns would never use words like high velocity semi automatic AR. high velocity implies that it is a gun. Semi automatic implies it is a gun. Automatic is the only time a distinction is needed.

Bolt action is a thing of the past, and only used in sniping and hunting. It is NEVER used for self defense or mass shootings (unless its a sniper). Well....maybe in RARE occasions.

As you can see... AR implies you do not have to manually chamber each individual round and also guess what - the bullet moves fast.

Otherwise - IT WOULDNT BE AN AR!

Are you saying we should have all the legal carriers should have to manually chamber each round? The criminal might have a fully automatic..... this looks like a losing situation for the family man, and a nice lick for the criminal. After they kill you and rob you they will be laughing saying "Did you see that gun that *insert derogetory term here* had? He made it too easy."

Or are you saying we should get rid of "high velocity" guns? What do you want sling shots? bullets all move at a high velocity, and an AR is not extraordinarily high in it's velocity compared to other long guns. The smaller bullet let's it travel farther. More importantly though, higher velocity does not = more damage. Possibly more penetration but not technically.

I wish intelligence agencies would secretly make all drum mags jam without any of us knowing it. Wait...did they already do that?

edit on 29-12-2012 by NarrowGate because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 29 2012 @ 12:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by NarrowGate
reply to post by bknapple32
 


I don't care about statistics. It is concepts that count more. Logically, I knew before my brother got killed that gun free zones would get people killed. There happens to be statistics that agree, and some that would disagree. Statistics can be twisted, and should only be used where there is CLEAR data - you will find none on guns or gun crime.

Do you need evidence of this? I could get links on how much trouble the FBI got in for this.

Statistics always get twisted, ESPECIALLY gun crime.


I get that. just asking. I feel that a guard at the presidents kids school is more qualified than a parent we don't know just hanging out with a gun. Do we have to be reminded of trigger happy neighborhood watchmen from Florida?



posted on Dec, 29 2012 @ 02:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by bknapple32

Originally posted by NarrowGate
reply to post by bknapple32
 


I don't care about statistics. It is concepts that count more. Logically, I knew before my brother got killed that gun free zones would get people killed. There happens to be statistics that agree, and some that would disagree. Statistics can be twisted, and should only be used where there is CLEAR data - you will find none on guns or gun crime.

Do you need evidence of this? I could get links on how much trouble the FBI got in for this.

Statistics always get twisted, ESPECIALLY gun crime.


I get that. just asking. I feel that a guard at the presidents kids school is more qualified than a parent we don't know just hanging out with a gun. Do we have to be reminded of trigger happy neighborhood watchmen from Florida?


No we do not, or the one who shot a man for playing music.

What you will not be reminded of is me or the other people whos lives are saved every year by the 2nd ammendment. If not for that particular ammendment - I would be dead. People actively tried to kill me. They killed my brother in a gun free zone - did you hear about that on national news? Of course not. I could get into more detail about why many killers can be killed before they shoot you, but that deserves its own thread I guess. The way it normally plays out, the victim has a chance to pull out and shoot. You would think not but I could explain why.

The thing is, what if either one of those men had been shot first? I understand that's a straw man, and full of ambiguity and faulty logic given the context of those specific situations given the age of the victims (if you think our current 21 is the correct age). BUT the logic is valid overall.

I am a parent you do not know that has carried a weapon for a while now. Would you let your kid play at my house if you knew me and that I am a truly stable and a responsible person with my weapon (stays on my hip, and unless I am out in public no round chambered)?

The thing is - they could pay for the concealed carriers on schools to get special psychiatric exams and extra trigger time. This would cost a lot of money.... see the problem is really greed.



posted on Dec, 29 2012 @ 09:07 AM
link   
Where have people been screaming for more funding to public schools as the education system has deteriorated? Safety has to be a concern, but so should the education. And that has been a crisis for decades.



posted on Dec, 29 2012 @ 12:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by NarrowGate
The thing is - they could pay for the concealed carriers on schools to get special psychiatric exams and extra trigger time. This would cost a lot of money.... see the problem is really greed.


There are guns all around us everyday, and just about every place we go to, except schools....

I just can not run with the argument that all of a sudden people will go crazy at a school if we put guns there too. That seems to be the one and ONLY point that people who do not like this idea have.

Here is the real deal....People who are against guns do not want to see it successful since their own kids, heaven forbid, might see guns in a positive way and so might not have some huge negitive conitation everytime the word is mentioned like their parents do. There are 6ish States that already allow guns in schools, so it is not some kind of out of the box thinking that we do not know how it might turn out either.

I put forth a challenge to those against it to find examples of teachers or school guards that went on a crazy shooting spree in those States that have been carrying for years. The other side of this is if by chance one does go crazy at a school there are still many others in the school to stop them. As it been said over and over, people are going to murder no matter what, and they will use what ever tool they have, hell, 2000 of the 15000 or so murders per year in the US are commited by hands.


edit on 29-12-2012 by Xtrozero because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 29 2012 @ 12:47 PM
link   
I don't know if this has been posted already, but how about allowing parents within the school district to hold a vote. In my city we have the right to show up to board meetings to observe, support, or protest. Leave the federal government out of it, and work on security from a local level. Hey, if parents agree to pitch in an extra few dollars in real estate taxes to provide security, then let them, and this includes CCW training for teachers. It may only be a raise in taxes of $10 per family depending on the size of the district. I know I personally would pay much more than that for peace of mind. Fundraising comes to mind as well. Get the local community involved.

I attended school in Texas, and always remember the police on campus, I did not feel oppressed, it seemed normal to me.

At least allow these rights within other schools if you have the same privileges yourself.

.



posted on Dec, 29 2012 @ 08:10 PM
link   
I'm the last person you'd ever find in line to defend our government. I could share my own opinion on many politicians. But I digress... This is my first reply on this site, ever, so I'll behave.


My thought, albeit simple, is that the children of some politicians and officials are likely targets for terrorist groups, crooked activists, and war criminals. So, yes, they need more protection than, say, Little Billy up the street. That's not an issue of a child's worth. If Little Billy's dad was a schizophrenic convict escapee armed with a sniper, then I'd say Little Billy needed some backup.

Schools deserve better protection, yes. But I think this is two entirely different issues. I'm also a mom. I get it.



posted on Dec, 30 2012 @ 12:29 AM
link   
reply to post by Xtrozero
 


There are guns at school every time the police are there, and things like this occasionally happen.



posted on Dec, 30 2012 @ 01:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by Asktheanimals
reply to post by Staroth
 


I get your point;
Only those who have enough money should be able to have armed guards at their schools.
Where you get that I'm someone with no "drive" in life I have no idea.
You don't have a clue who I am or what I've done with my life.


The funny thing about all of this is that I wonder where some of these folks really live... if its in the same reality I live in and have lived in and maneuvered within for more decades than I care to admit. The worst school in our area a town over in the poorest town.. has armed guards and metal detectors. So the argument about it only being rich folks is... well... ignorant in the truest sense of the word.


I went to an inner city school back in the 80's for a very short time that had.. GASP.. armed guards and ID cards each student had to present or you were not allowed in the doors. In the 80's.. I repeat.. in the 80's. I went to MC Preparatory High School... uh oh.. guards there too. I mean, guards at school arent a novel 21st century profound or controversial idea for God's sake. One was public.. paid with pub money and the other was very expensive and private.



posted on Dec, 30 2012 @ 08:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by Indigo5

Originally posted by NavyDoc

I've never said that the President nor his children should not have a security detail.


Great...glad to have a "thinking" debate then.


Originally posted by NavyDoc
What I have pointed out is the obvious hypocrisy of someone surrounded with armed guards supporting gun bans for other people.


He also has the Nuclear "football"...is it hypocritical that he also supports banning public access to Nuclear weapons?

Extreme example?...Hmm..OK, How about RPG launchers? Hand held anti-aircraft weapons?

The NRA is not proposing that every citizen have access to Nuclear Weapons...and the anti-gun lobby is not proposing we ban kitchen knives and large rocks.

But both should agree that there is a spectrum of death toll numbers associated with those weapons in a madmans hands.

AND somewhere on that spectrum falls the AR-15, AK-47, M-16 etc.

Where do we draw that line? Not rehtorical...I want your honest answer...what weapons do you think should be banned? And why?


I would go with the original intent of the 2nd amendment and the co-authored militia act of 1791. That the people retain the same weapons of the people policing them and the average infantry soldier.



posted on Dec, 30 2012 @ 09:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by Indigo5

Originally posted by NavyDoc

"High velocity" is not a technical specification of the AR-15. "High velocity" compared to what? I bet that, right now, without googling, you don't even know what the velocity of the round is.


Silly rabbit...I posted it over a week ago...Wrong on both fronts.

Bushmaster AR-15 used by Adam Lanza
Rapid fire Semi-Automatic
Ammunition: .223 Remington; 55 grain bullet @ 3240 feet per second.
Muzzle Energy: 1282 foot-pounds.
Capacity: Standard 30 round magazine, 60 or 100 Round clips available, but with a greater likelihood of jamming the higher you go.
post by Indigo5




So one day after the statement, you provide a cut an paste and expect us to believe that this is indicative of intimate klowlege of the subject.

You still call 'em clips. LOL

Do you even understand what an assault rifle is compaired to a main battle rifle? I'll help. An assault rifle is a rifle of intermediate strength cartrige fired from a rifle that is capable of full auto fire or semi auto by use of a selection lever. Armie adopted them because they realized that the vast majority of firefights took place under 300 yards, so the more power cartiges such as the 30-06 were overkill and were not worth the bulk and weight, so they went with smaller, weaker rounds. The 7.62x39 that is used in the AK-47 is ballistically identical to grandpaws 30-30 lever action deer rifle round. There is nothing magical or unusually destructive or unusual with the .223 remington and it is actually underpowered compared to the majority of sporting rounds out there.

If you knew anything of the subject matter other than what they feed you at the huffington post, you would understand this.



posted on Dec, 30 2012 @ 09:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by Indigo5
I tried to google up your story on a home invasion being foiled by AK-47's? Please provide a link, lest I make the mistake of thinking it is gun-fanatic-fantasy BS?


You did? Now, I'm not calling you a liar, but this was the very first google hit on the very first page.

granitegrok.com... -stopped-with-scary-black-gun-by-a-15-year-old



posted on Dec, 30 2012 @ 12:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xtrozero

Originally posted by NarrowGate
The thing is - they could pay for the concealed carriers on schools to get special psychiatric exams and extra trigger time. This would cost a lot of money.... see the problem is really greed.


There are guns all around us everyday, and just about every place we go to, except schools....

I just can not run with the argument that all of a sudden people will go crazy at a school if we put guns there too. That seems to be the one and ONLY point that people who do not like this idea have.

Here is the real deal....People who are against guns do not want to see it successful since their own kids, heaven forbid, might see guns in a positive way and so might not have some huge negitive conitation everytime the word is mentioned like their parents do. There are 6ish States that already allow guns in schools, so it is not some kind of out of the box thinking that we do not know how it might turn out either.

I put forth a challenge to those against it to find examples of teachers or school guards that went on a crazy shooting spree in those States that have been carrying for years. The other side of this is if by chance one does go crazy at a school there are still many others in the school to stop them. As it been said over and over, people are going to murder no matter what, and they will use what ever tool they have, hell, 2000 of the 15000 or so murders per year in the US are commited by hands.


edit on 29-12-2012 by Xtrozero because: (no reason given)


Ahh I hear you loud and clear brother.

The problem is, all it would take is ONE incident where one of the guards does something stupid, even in an active shooter situation, and accidentally hits a kid. That situation is avoidable - it would cost money.



posted on Dec, 30 2012 @ 02:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xtrozero

Originally posted by Indigo5
But more to the point...while handguns might be the most common weapon of choice for murder, in MASS SHOOTINGS, the Assault Rifle is indisputably the weapon of choice...

July 20, 2012 James Holmes, Aurora Colorado "Batman" shooter..., 12 dead, 58 wounded, AR-15 (S&W M&P Rifle)
Dec. 14, 2012 Adam Lanza, Sandyhook, 28 dead, AR-15
March 10, 2009 AL Michael Kenneth McLendon, using a Soviet-made SKS, a Bushmaster AR-15 10 Dead, 2 Children
The Port Arthur Massactre in Australia, 1996, 35 Dead, 23 wounded...AR-10


So do you think ARs should be banned because of their capabilites? I guess the main question would be why?


Good questions...and a complex question.

I am not for banning all guns and I think anyone that focuses purely on regulating guns is wrong. Guns are a tool and mass murders begin with a sick mind, so an examination of our mental health system (treating those that are sick) as well as an examination of what makes them sick in the first place is needed.

If your child gets a horrible flu and has problems breathing, you call an ambulance or take them to the ER.

Mental health? It has a stigma and a much more muddy protocol for when to seriously intervene. What are the signs that someone is slipping toward hurting themselves or others?

A great deal of work needs to be done there...prevention and treatment.

Now...that said...we restrict a whole swath of weapons because we understand that some weapons are more deadly than others. We do not permit the open sale of rocket launchers, nuclear weapons, anti-aircraft etc.

We know that some weapons are capable of killing large numbers of people more easily than other weapons.

Where does the AR-15 or the AR "platform" fall on that scale? From heavy rock...to...Nuclear weapon? We need to make decisions in the context of preserving the 2nd Amendment IMO.

The AR has properties, properties that for non-BSers are indisputable. I have discussed those qualities exhaustively here...and frankly the argument that the AR-15 is just as effective as lesser guns or a kitchen knife is too silly to debate. AR-15 owners and gun manufacturers would dispute this all day long if not for the current tragedy. It actually how the AR-15 is marketed to the consumer.

If Lanza and other mass murderers had been equiped with a six shooter revolver, would more folks have lived? More kids been able to run? An opportunity for teachers to rush him? I don't know...but common sense has to enter the debate somewhere.

Where we draw the line in what weapons the public is able to get thier hands on ...and how easily they can do it...needs to be discussed also. Should Lanza's mother been able to own those weapons with a mentally ill child? Should she have been able to take him to the range to learn to shoot those weapons? Do you think we need better background checks? Do you think we should close the gun show loophole?

edit on 30-12-2012 by Indigo5 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 30 2012 @ 02:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by NarrowGate
Third, I don't see a problem with people owning AR's.

In Detroit, there was a home invasion spree where the criminals were dressing up like cops and "raiding" houses then robbing and raping even old ladys. Well, one day they got caught of guard when two people with AKs hit a couple of them.

I vote we keep assault rifles in the hands of homeowners. They already micro chip dogs, why not AR's?



Originally posted by Indigo5
I tried to google up your story on a home invasion being foiled by AK-47's? Please provide a link, lest I make the mistake of thinking it is gun-fanatic-fantasy BS?



Originally posted by NarrowGate
reply to post by Indigo5
 


Ahh screw it. I blame the propaganda machine (news stations).

No I will not link look it up if you want. BTW the other story, wtf do you think you can google?



BS....Funny you complain about propaganda while providing it. Or is it not propaganda when it agrees with you?



posted on Dec, 30 2012 @ 02:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by NavyDoc

Originally posted by Indigo5
I tried to google up your story on a home invasion being foiled by AK-47's? Please provide a link, lest I make the mistake of thinking it is gun-fanatic-fantasy BS?


You did? Now, I'm not calling you a liar, but this was the very first google hit on the very first page.

granitegrok.com... -stopped-with-scary-black-gun-by-a-15-year-old


That was a BOY...who shot one of TWO UNARMED Home Invaders...in HOUSTON TEXAS...

Not Detroit...Not dressed as cops...Not raping old ladies...Not armed...Not Two guys with ARs.

This was the story I asked for a link to...Are you being ignorant? Or dishonest?


Originally posted by NarrowGate
Third, I don't see a problem with people owning AR's.

In Detroit, there was a home invasion spree where the criminals were dressing up like cops and "raiding" houses then robbing and raping even old ladys. Well, one day they got caught of guard when two people with AKs hit a couple of them.


Funny that those that complain the media is spreading BS when they simply cite statistics...seem jolly good with thier own gun-rambo-BS fictions being touted as truth.

BULLSH*&....If you can't make you case without fiction and BS then I am not interested. THAT is what you purportedly demand from the "Media"...if you can't manage honestly yourself in the discussion then you are not credible and there is no reason anyone should care about what you say.
edit on 30-12-2012 by Indigo5 because: (no reason given)
edit on 30-12-2012 by Indigo5 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 30 2012 @ 04:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Indigo5

Originally posted by NavyDoc

Originally posted by Indigo5
I tried to google up your story on a home invasion being foiled by AK-47's? Please provide a link, lest I make the mistake of thinking it is gun-fanatic-fantasy BS?


You did? Now, I'm not calling you a liar, but this was the very first google hit on the very first page.

granitegrok.com... -stopped-with-scary-black-gun-by-a-15-year-old


That was a BOY...who shot one of TWO UNARMED Home Invaders...in HOUSTON TEXAS...

Not Detroit...Not dressed as cops...Not raping old ladies...Not armed...Not Two guys with ARs.

This was the story I asked for a link to...Are you being ignorant? Or dishonest?


Originally posted by NarrowGate
Third, I don't see a problem with people owning AR's.

In Detroit, there was a home invasion spree where the criminals were dressing up like cops and "raiding" houses then robbing and raping even old ladys. Well, one day they got caught of guard when two people with AKs hit a couple of them.


Funny that those that complain the media is spreading BS when they simply cite statistics...seem jolly good with thier own gun-rambo-BS fictions being touted as truth.

BULLSH*&....If you can't make you case without fiction and BS then I am not interested. THAT is what you purportedly demand from the "Media"...if you can't manage honestly yourself in the discussion then you are not credible and there is no reason anyone should care about what you say.
edit on 30-12-2012 by Indigo5 because: (no reason given)
edit on 30-12-2012 by Indigo5 because: (no reason given)


You said you searched and searched google and found no mention of someone using an "assault weapon" to defend themselves from a home invader. I found one within 30 seconds. Had he not been armed, it is likely he and his sister would be dead. Now I have to ask you if you are being dishonest.





top topics
 
32
<< 12  13  14   >>

log in

join