I heard about this the day before yesterday this is without a doubt the dumbest spin off of the tragedy currently spinning around the Internet and in the minds of knotheaded politicians. First of all, what is needed are fewer to no guns in public schools. Secondly, I don’t know of any teacher, let alone parent who would want someone armed in their child’s classroom. Next, the gun would have to be placed in some secure spot and locked, thus Lessening it’s effectiveness as a defensive weapon. by the time you got to it the incident would have already happened. It isn’t easy to direct 25-30 kids into one corner of the room, turn off the lights, lock the door and have them be completely still, believe me. Having a gun in a classroom also increases the possibility of accidental shooting even if the teacher is trained. I can’t see a kindergarten teacher accepting a gun in her classroom anyway, even if she were firced to do so. And who will pay for these expensive firearms anyway when most school districts have their funding so drastically cut that many can’t afford more current textbooks or moden technology? Who will pay to arm 500,000 teachers? The whole concept is ridiculous and as you say Mac totally knee jerk. Personally, I wouldn’t even issue a baseball bat. Leave it to the professionals; increase police presence at schools as a major deterrent. It works and I’ve seen it’s effectiveness.
....be up to the people to force legislation. The good news is that even NRA members are speaking up in a positive way about the ban, thus choosing to buck their own organization’s stance. what will tell the tale is when this horrible incident fades from media attention. Will the reps kowtow again to then NRA or grow a backbone and take a stand against them and their lobby money. There are no quick fixes to this problem and the NRA isn’t disbanding anytime soon. What we can do is chip away at it by first stopping the sale of any automatic….
Cap’t Jack
Yes we’ll see. I have a feeling very little will get done once this latest massacre fades away.
Our only hope is going to be 2014.
Yes, excellent articles. Particularly of note in the one about Switzerland is this bit of information: “In 2007, the government began requiring that nearly all of the ammo is kept at secure army depots.”
Yes, excellent articles. Particularly of note in the one about Switzerland is this bit of information: “In 2007, the government began requiring that nearly all of the ammo is kept at secure army depots.”
Yes, that was one measure in the right direction. However, it was not checked carefully. It turned out that still a lot of ammunition disappears. I think the whole stuff is a joke. Switzerland has no enemies at their borders. There is no need for anybody to have his army weapon at home. When geo-political circumstances change there is time enough to be prepared for the army to mobilise and get the soldiers there where the weapons and the ammunition are. I think until now the army weapon at home costed more innocent lives, than saving a single one.
Never thought in that way, but it makes perfectly sense. When militia once tasted power they do not let loose. Surely they have no democratic mentality…
Never thought in that way, but it makes perfectly sense. When militia once tasted power they do not let loose. Surely they have no democratic mentality…
The Economist article is an excellent reposte on the purpose of a militia. The whole concept is anachronistic as today our standing army has weapons more than capable of putting down an insurrection by small groups of paranoid wing nuts with a skewed view of the government. Yes the militia was important in the beginning as I pointed out many times in other posts. We had no standing army of any size until after the Civil War which was BTW fought almost entirely by state militia units. The author has most of his information correct but even during the so called Indian Wars the “standing army” was quite small and often beefed up with local militia units. Also, for you Canadians, we tried twice to invade your country but your regulars AND militia beat us back both times. The last time you captured our whole army! But that’s history and has no bearing on the modern argument. Today’s military, even though it is standing has no more than 1 1/2 million actives with 1 1/2 million more in reserve but is now armed with what would be considered super weapons inaccessible to so called militias. So the whole concept of the ownership of semi-automatic guns for the purpose of defending against a professional paramilitary force is moot. That only leaves collectors and those who espouse personal protection over professionally trained police officers. Here’s a counter, save the $1,000 it takes to buy one and apply it to a tax to increase your local police departments and furnish them with better weapons and a living wage. As for collectors, if you want to hang an assault rifle on your wall, buy a non firing replica. Looks the same and can’t be used for mass killing. For those who want to use weapons, join any of the five branches and volunteer for front line service. Before you leave however, make a visit to your local VA. Hospital.
When I think of some of the whack-a-loon teachers I’ve had who were perfectly capable of teaching a class, but couldn’t be trusted to cross the road—-having guns..
Never thought in that way, but it makes perfectly sense. When militia once tasted power they do not let loose. Surely they have no democratic mentality…
The Economist article is an excellent reposte on the purpose of a militia. The whole concept is anachronistic as today our standing army has weapons more than capable of putting down an insurrection by small groups of paranoid wing nuts with a skewed view of the government. Yes the militia was important in the beginning as I pointed out many times in other posts. We had no standing army of any size until after the Civil War which was BTW fought almost entirely by state militia units. The author has most of his information correct but even during the so called Indian Wars the “standing army” was quite small and often beefed up with local militia units. Also, for you Canadians, we tried twice to invade your country but your regulars AND militia beat us back both times. The last time you captured our whole army! But that’s history and has no bearing on the modern argument. Today’s military, even though it is standing has no more than 1 1/2 million actives with 1 1/2 million more in reserve but is now armed with what would be considered super weapons inaccessible to so called militias. So the whole concept of the ownership of semi-automatic guns for the purpose of defending against a professional paramilitary force is moot. That only leaves collectors and those who espouse personal protection over professionally trained police officers. Here’s a counter, save the $1,000 it takes to buy one and apply it to a tax to increase your local police departments and furnish them with better weapons and a living wage. As for collectors, if you want to hang an assault rifle on your wall, buy a non firing replica. Looks the same and can’t be used for mass killing. For those who want to use weapons, join any of the five branches and volunteer for front line service. Before you leave however, make a visit to your local VA. Hospital.
Cap’t Jack
Small groups of insurgent paranoid wingnuts could not be put down in Iraq or Afghanistan, or Somalia by our military.
Small groups of insurgent paranoid wingnuts could not be put down in Iraq or Afghanistan, or Somalia by our military.
The same can become true of US insurgent paranoid wingnuts, like teabaggers, truthers or whatever. So do not give them access to weapons. The world would be a safer place with less weapons.
