Reply to Thread

Originally Posted by ga-hvac-tech

Good point about uniform of under-cover!

Seems the first thing a crazy would do is take out the uniform guy/gal.

Ya know... thinking about this: Is the person really crazy? They planned this thing....

Mental health is more complicated than just looking for someone cross-eyed who drools.

Might be an interesting discussion to attempt to define what is mentally healthy and is mentally unhealthy, and what is mentally dangerous.

I think the key is to err on the side of caution, and once a lack of danger is determined, then release for treatment from home, by appointment.

Mental illness doe not mean that you can't "plan" something. It simply affects what you desire to plan.

Good point about uniform of under-cover!

Seems the first thing a crazy would do is take out the uniform guy/gal.

Ya know... thinking about this: Is the person really crazy? They planned this thing....

Mental health is more complicated than just looking for someone cross-eyed who drools.

Might be an interesting discussion to attempt to define what is mentally healthy and is mentally unhealthy, and what is mentally dangerous.

Memory may be a bit foggy here... I think there was a time in Russia where a group of terrorists took a movie theatre... The Russian cops (or whatever they call their SWAT guys), DID gas the theatre. The result was about half a dozen folks died from the gassing... after a gunfight.

So while it sounds like a good idea... we have evidence it did not work as well as it sounds.

What I want to know is: What is wrong with armed responsible citizens?

Originally Posted by allenrobinson2269

What about HVAC systems that gas the whole school with Haylon or Nitros or some other gas that would be a lot safer thatn a bullet. Someone will pointout that there are dangers associated with gas, but I know for a fact Nitros is safer than getting shot. I have done both. Bullets hurt. Nitros makes fillings fun.

Maybe someday we will have a harmless sleeping gas, like they used to keep people away from Devil's Tower, in the Close Encounters movie.

Until then, our best hope for safety is to sequester and treat the looneys, and have a trained person at the school as a backup. I would prefer that such a person not be easily identifiable to an intruder, either, so the element of surprise is not lost in the encounter. A guy in police or military style security garb is too easy to spot.

How many time does someone have to say this:

Guns do not kill people, people kill people.

Show me a gun in a box or cabinet or for that matter sitting on a table... without anyone touching it... that killed someone... go on, show me. Until you goofy libs who are choosing to live in denial can show me a gun that killed someone without a human touching it... as far as those of us who think clearly are concerned you are just full of hot air... and there is a big pin to stick in the balloon... the pin is called common sense...

Would any of us want to be on the school board when the TV cameras come to discuss why little Johnny or Amy died over the gassing?

We all know the reason for the gassing... as well as the fact it stopped the shooter would be lost in poor little Johnny or Amy... and their poor parents.

MeThinks we need to either curb sensationalistic media, or us citizens need to decide we do not want to hear sensationalism anymore... rather factual reporting.

Oh and buy a lot of guns and keep them locked in a big safe and you will be fine on every occasion.

What about HVAC systems that gas the whole school with Haylon or Nitros or some other gas that would be a lot safer thatn a bullet. Someone will pointout that there are dangers associated with gas, but I know for a fact Nitros is safer than getting shot. I have done both. Bullets hurt. Nitros makes fillings fun.

Here is one way that's working.
http://www.standeyo.com/NEWS/12_Pics....of.day.c.html

Originally Posted by timebuilder

I have to agree that government is more concerned about appearing cooperative and being invited to the popular Washington parties, along with being written about favorably in the Press, than they are in being sent there to do a job under the Constitution as a representative of the People.

This is why a new conservative movement has arisen, about which the Republican party apparatus complains bitterly.

Good observation!

In 2010; the TeaParty folks (read that traditional conservatives) gained a lot of power in the GOP, and stopped the tide of govt gone crazy.
Then the 'old guard' got control of the GOP and look how much we lost in 2012.

The old guard needs to go out to pasture, the GOP needs to be rebuilt with TeaParty folks (or another name for conservatives). Time for the people to run this country, rather than a few elitists who buy influence on the backs of the citizens.

Originally Posted by ga-hvac-tech

Here is one more 'armed citizen' video (no, nobody gets shot)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...&v=V-oNMHNrS-8

As you watch this, note how bored the govt officials are... as if they really care about citizens... ]

In GA's opinion... this is the REAL issue; govt is not here for us, they are here for themselves. Think about it.

That video awesome.

I have to agree that government is more concerned about appearing cooperative and being invited to the popular Washington parties, along with being written about favorably in the Press, than they are in being sent there to do a job under the Constitution as a representative of the People.

This is why a new conservative movement has arisen, about which the Republican party apparatus complains bitterly.

Here is one more 'armed citizen' video (no, nobody gets shot)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...&v=V-oNMHNrS-8

As you watch this, note how bored the govt officials are... as if they really care about citizens... ]

In GA's opinion... this is the REAL issue; govt is not here for us, they are here for themselves. Think about it.

GA is gonna post something positive about this tragedy; this is posted at the '26 dead...' thread also'

http://www.sparkpeople.com/mypage_pu...log_id=5169978

http://freestudents.********.com/200...esistance.html

Banning high capacity magazines is like NY banning sodas larger than 16oz. If I want more I'll get a second one.

Originally Posted by durussel78

So,
Ban assault weapons
Ban high capacity magazines

Unfortunately, high capacity magazines and assaust weapons are not the problem. My XD40 holds 12 in the mag. My XD9 holds 15. Add a round to the chamber and that's 13 or 16, depending on the gun. These are not high capacity magazines. I can eject and replace a magazine in either gun in about 2 seconds and have a new round chambered in another 1-1.5 seconds. I have 4 magazines for each gun. My point is, that in 10-15 seconds I can rattle off 30 rounds, which isn't much slower than an AR-15 with a 30 round magazine if time is being taken between shots for accuracy. If I'm carrying both, I can shoot 29 rounds even faster because I shoot left and right handed. Not much difference in time and rounds fired between my handguns and an AR-15 with a 30 round mag.

Originally Posted by Boabcelt

As somebody from a country with very low levels of gun ownership, and extremely low levels of gun crime,(5 murders in 2011/12 and 11 attempted murders) I have read these pages with fascination. We have had tragedy in the not too distant past, at Dunblane primary school (about 25miles from my home) and afterwards the recriminations all centered on the treatment, or lack thereof of the gunmans mental health. Not once was there a call for armed guards or every citizen to have access to weapons. Infact, gun ownership became far more difficult, even air rifles being banned. If there is extremely restricted access to firearms, and appropriate medical care for the mentally ill, then surely these incidents can be almost eradicated?

As a man of Scottish descent, I don't have to remind you that it is countries like America that are the reason you are not speaking German right now. An unarmed Scottish population would have been easy prey for the storm troopers. So, you have the luxury of others coming to your aid, when needed. We, on the other hand, expend our blood and treasure of behalf of keeping others free, along with ourselves.

The founders of the US enshrined our right to bear arms so that we, the populace, could protect ourselves from any future tyrants. We are not having these shootings because of guns, but because of the individuals who can circumvent the current laws and acquire those guns for a a demented purpose. We used to make certain these unbalanced folks received treatment, and were sequestered from the more balanced population until that treatment was completed.

This is not a slam against Scotland, or my ancestral town of Rutherglen. It's merely a fact that if you did not have a United States that was willing to cross the ocean in the 1940's, you too would need to have a well armed populace, and would need to take the same measures we must take now to ensure our safety from the depressed and psychotic.

Where are you getting your facts?

http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/St...stice/TrendHom

Originally Posted by Boabcelt

As somebody from a country with very low levels of gun ownership, and extremely low levels of gun crime,(5 murders in 2011/12 and 11 attempted murders) I have read these pages with fascination. We have had tragedy in the not too distant past, at Dunblane primary school (about 25miles from my home) and afterwards the recriminations all centered on the treatment, or lack thereof of the gunmans mental health. Not once was there a call for armed guards or every citizen to have access to weapons. Infact, gun ownership became far more difficult, even air rifles being banned. If there is extremely restricted access to firearms, and appropriate medical care for the mentally ill, then surely these incidents can be almost eradicated?

Just like pilots are armed in airplanes, why, to protect the lives of passengers. we always seem to think its the gun that is the problem, when in fact its our society and the way anyone can be a broken or mentally unstable and get free help, if not be subsidised by our government. I grew up in the 60s and 70s when we all were responsible for ourselves and our children if they were defective. society doesnt make them defective, whatever happened to asylums?, not politicaly correct anymore because everyone has the same rights?, bs, i carry and i support our freedom thru the second amendment, our country is going to hell in a handbasket because of liberals who want to just give to make it better, BS!!