Quote:
Originally Posted by adpimiz
If the solution is to arm teachers, shouldn't they be teachers who possess military or police training? I think I said it upthread, but a shooter is an active target. When there are children running around, a shooter running around shooting... That's not an easy target to hit. I don't think that a teacher who's taken one gun class would be able to hit an active shooter who was possibly firing back. I've been shooting with my parents before, and have grown up around guns, but I highly doubt I would be much help in that kind of situation, even if I was armed.
|
Anyone who carries a firearm has extra responsibility. In Harrold, TX there have been armed personel since 2007
http://news.yahoo.com/texas-town-all...081017416.html
These shooters tend to be cowards. They choose gun-free zones to commit these attacks. I remember an attack at a church in Ft Worth, TX a few years ago, but when a church was attacked in Colorado there was a volunteer 'security guard' who shot the attacker and stopped the attack. We look at the school shooting in Pearl, MS. The assistant principal had to retrieve his gun from the car which allowed more students to die, but when faced with an armed teacher the student surrendered before he could get to the middle school to continue his shooting. I was living in Austin when there was a shooting at the Luby's cafeteria in Killeen, TX. There was a lady, Suzanna Gratia-Hupp, in there with her parents. She watched her parents die because she was a law abiding citizen and left her gun in the car and could do nothing. I have defended myself without having to fire a shot. I saved a girlfriend from an abduction using my gun. I didn't have to shot anyone then either. It was me against 5, but the gun made the difference. A moving target is harder to hit, but they tend to stop moving to shoot and distance is a factor in hit probability. Even if the armed teacher shoots high over the shooters head it will distract them from killing the kids. You don't hear about these guys going in and trying to shoot up police stations, gun shows, gun stores, or schools with armed guards. They want unarmed victims.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticCat
SIEGEL: Can you go so far as to say there should be a real limit, as there used to be, on how big a magazine you can use?
|
I don't see magazine capacity as being an issue. The Browning HP (P-35) has been equiped with a standard 13 round magazine since its introduction in 1935. The S&W mod 59 had a 15 round magazine in 1970. In rifles the M14 went into service in 1959 and the BAR in 1919, with 20 round magazines. How can it be that nearly 100 years later it is a problem? The previous magazine ban sunsetted in 2004. A report was prepared by the Attorney General Office that found that the law had no effect on crime at all and isn't crime what we are trying to effect? Sadly that is not the case for many people. They want guns gone regardless of the effect on crime.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticCat
I think he's right. If people come to the table with their minds already made up, whether about what the answers are or what the answers aren't, then the wrong people are at the table.
|
Open minds are important. The other thing to realize is that large population centers on the east and west coast is where you see the anti-gun sentiment. Here in Oklahoma not one county voted for Obama and I know that in Oklahoma and Texas it is not appreciated when the government passes legislation that pleases the coasts. It doesn't always go over here in the middle of the country.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticCat
Not quite. The Bill of Rights itself only restricts the powers of the federal government, and courts consistently held that until the end of the 19th Century. But starting the 1920s, courts have held the Fourteenth Amendment, which does apply to the states, "incorporates" some of the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights and imposes on state and local governments the same restrictions imposed on the federal government.
|
The 14th was passed in 1868 and was the result of some of the enumerated rights be stepped on. IMO the states could not void rights under the Constitution, but it took the 14th Amendment to make it official. I think that the 10th Amendment should have been recognized to identify the rights of 'the people', and the rest were for the states. The 14th was a restatement.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticCat
It was not until 2010 that the Supreme Court held that the Second Amendment applies to the states.
|
About time too.