Did anyone catch the idiot statement from the State Congressman from Colorado Springs (Doug Dean-R) about the impending concealed weapons permit vote and the events that happened at the shot up high school? He said that if one of the teachers or administrators had a concealed weapon that he (or she) could have shot the gunmen and ended the incident.
What a asinine thing to say. Hello Congressman Dean, those kids had assault rifles, automatic handguns, hand grenades,…etc. How realistic is it to say that a High School Vice-Principal is going to pick off two kids with
AK-47s, and hand grenades with his/her handgun? I’ve got an idea Congressman Dean, why don’t we just give every high school kid a Beretta with their student handbooks so if this happens again our sons and daughters can just whack the gun-toting whackos and then go back to study hall? Or how about this, instead of student hall monitors, we can have student high school “prison-type guards” that can walk around with shotguns and shoot anybody who looks suspicious or sit up in towers and sniper off anybody that is wearing a trenchcoat.
Congressman Dean, you are an asshole. Your comments could only come from an asshole and any moron who thinks that arming citizens with guns is going to stop horrible, horrible events like this is a misguided asshole.
I’m not about to go into the whole NRA thing, but think about this, I don’t expect gun laws to fix the problem overnight, but you have to start somewhere. The sooner you make them illegal, the sooner law enforcement can start destroying guns. Sure it will take decades to eradicate all the guns in America, but until you start somewhere, it will never happen.
The whole gun control thing really brings out a lot of emotion in folks, doesn’t it?
But, in fact, if a teacher or administrator at the school in Colorado had a concealed weapon and was well-trained in its use (like police or military training) he/she WOULD have a very good chance against irrational, untrained teens, even though they had superior firepower. An untrained person, as most would be, would need a lot of luck.
Personally, I’m in favor of allowing concealed weapons, BUT with this caveat-- that the carrying person receive rigorous training and a thorough background check. But what are the chances of that being implemented properly?
I am disgusted by the NRA’s reaction to the tragedy in Colorado! They think that cutting their meeting back from three to one days is a way of showing “profound sympathy” for the victims and their families. Hey Chuck! Here’s an idea…why don’t you quit supporting laws that guarantee that these weapons will get into the hands of children!!! I am sickened by the idea that the NRA and others point to the Constitution to justify their actions. The 2nd amendment says “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” Anyone with a 9th grade education can tell the real meaning of this statement. I don’t want to get in a long discussion about the NRA, constitution, etc. Let me put this as briefly as possible. All weapons that have no other purpose than to kill people should be outlawed. Period. Arming everyone would only lead to MORE tragedies. Only the U.S. has this problem because we are the only country with our gun laws. Are we so ethnocentric to believe that we are somehow special or different? 'Nuff said for now…
There WAS an armed guard at the school! He tried to shoot the gunboys, but missed. And then they went to the library and massacred some more students. So having someone with a gun there did not help at all. And this was someone who WAS well trained to use a gun.
You are using the same dumbass argument that Chucky Heston tried yesterday and it didn’t float then and it won’t float today. As Gurduloo has so accurately pointed out, there was an armed security guard (armed with a 12-shot Baretta) that squeezed off two shots, but then he got hammered with some TEC-9 rounds.
So what’s your answer to that? More guns? Body armor? What other product or argument can you make that makes the gun companies more money and avoids the obvious solution that most guns need to be destroyed?
The TEC-9 is an perfect example. That gun was made for killing people. It is not very accurate (hence bad for hunting/sport shooting), you can shoot off ten rounds in a matter of seconds, it was promoted to the ‘gun toting, criminal element’ as almost resistant to fingerprints, and it sold for around $400 (quite cheap for drug dealers who clear thousands a night). How many of those were sold before legislation took it of the shelf, Chuck?
My question to these NRA folks is: When you look in the mirror, do you see the karma getting ready to bite you in the ass or do you just know it’s coming and can’t do anything about it?
If a teacher or administrator had shot and killed those two teens who went on the killing spree, there would be a lot less dead people in Littleton. It would still be a tragedy, but less of one.
Responding to Gurduloo:
The fact that one lone guard, whose level of skill and training we know nothing about, failed to stop the kids doesn’t mean that trained, responsible adults with guns would necessarily be ineffective against them. And even if the guard was highly skilled, chance is aways a factor. What if there had been two guards, or three? This tragedy would have been cut short.
Responding to Jahender:
I completely agree with you that our culture of violence is a horrible thing. I abhor the fact that guns get into the wrong hands, and for the wrong reasons. But attempting to do away with all guns by passing laws against them just, in my opinion, won’t work. Although it’s become a slogan, I think it’s still true that the only people whose gun use would be prevented by laws, are the people who care about obeying laws.
Honest armed people are a deterrent to crime. Why else would banks have armed guards? Why else do we allow the police to carry arms? Unlike some in the gun lobby, I am not for doing away with all government control of gun ownership. But since the police cannot be everywhere and cannot be counted on to prevent violent crime from occuring, I would like the right to have the tools to protect myself and my loved-ones from criminals who have no regard for life, law and decency.
How many guns would solve the problem? The asinine view that the problem is not enough guns scares the living shit out of me. Of course, these are the same people that think we should ban violent films, violent games, and violent music! Guns don’t kill people, people kill people; of course, guns sure make it a HELL of a lot easier. For you half-wits that scream about your gun “rights”, try reading the first half of the amendment!
[[The fact that one lone guard, whose level of skill and training we know nothing about, failed to stop the kids doesn’t mean that trained, responsible adults with guns would necessarily be ineffective against them. ]]RANash
He was a professional police officer – sorry.
[[ And even if the guard was highly skilled, chance is aways a factor. What if there had been two guards, or three? This tragedy would have been cut short.]]
How about 50 at every school?
[[But attempting to do away with all guns by passing laws against them just, in my opinion, won’t work. Although it’s become a slogan, I think it’s still true that the only people whose gun use would be prevented by laws, are the people who care about obeying laws.]]
The slogan misrepresents the theory of gun control, to a large extent – the idea is to use law abiding dealers (hey, no jokes!) in concert with the raw effect of having fewer guns overall available for criminal use.
[[Honest armed people are a deterrent to crime.]]
Unfortunately, it’s not always easy to tell beforehand who’s honest and/or responsible. Heretofore honest people with guns kill and maim a lot of people.
So a gun is a “tool” for “protection”? I can’t seem to find the button on a .45 that puts up that magic shield of “protection”. On the other hand, if you feel that shooting at that shadowy figure crawling through the bedroom window will make you feel safer, go right ahead. Let me know, so I could send flowers to your child’s funeral. Funny how a kid will come home late sometimes, isn’t it?
Most law-abiding citizens are killed by OTHER law-abiding citizens. It’s also helpful to thieves to know that there’s a good chance that the empty house they are entering has a gun to rip off. Tell me something; what part of your brain do you hand over with your cash to get that gun?
[[The fact that one lone guard, whose level of skill and training we know nothing about, failed to stop the kids doesn’t mean that trained, responsible adults with guns would necessarily be ineffective against them. And even if the guard was highly skilled, chance is aways a factor. What if there had been two guards, or three? This tragedy would have been cut short.]]
Yes! More armed guards! Fire 20 teachers at every school and replace them with rent-a-cops! Then the Littleton kids would have never even brought those guns on campus, and the propane bomb wouldn’t have been found until after it went off, killing hundreds! What a perfect freaking plan!
Come on, gun enthuiasts, speak up! Can’t take a little logic and common sense? It’s so damn easy to follow HALF an amendment and use bumper sticker mentality…“I’ll give up my gun when they pry it…” and “Guns don’t kill people…”. It’s not so easy when you aren’t speaking to the converted, is it? Any gun nuts with guts enough to answer what has been brought up in this forum?
I know this is rather pointless, but if you check the stats on gun ownership and violent deaths caused by gunshots per capita, in US, Canada and UK…nuff said.
I just don’t understand why the hell would anyone need an assault rifle for hunting? Shees…it is most useless thing for that purpose, just look what sniper’s use. These weapons, such as AK-47, MP-5’s M-16, Steyrs and the like only have ONE purpose… to kill maximum amount of enemy personel in minimum time. There is no earthy reason why anyone should have one of these nasty things.
First… no, concealed weapons permits would not have prevented Littleton - but only for a reason I’ll get into after my -defense- of concealed weapons permits.
In the states where concealed carry laws have been enacted, the incidence of pointless gunplay has decreased. There’s a very logical reason for this; most people who engage in this sort of behavior do so with an expectation that either (a) they’ll have immediate power over those they’re terrorizing or (b) they’ll last long enough until the cops show to get their names on the news before they’re dead.
Ever since the time a guy tried to terrorize a cafeteria in Florida only to get capped within a couple of minutes by a customer with a concealed carry permit, the incidents have decreased.
The flip side of this is that if the perps are truly suicidal, they won’t care. That’s why I’m not entirely sure a concealed carry law in Colorado would have made a lick of difference, and may have done more harm in this -particular- situation. On the other hand, ALL laws geared toward public safety can have a dark side; if I’m caught in a burning vehicle about to explode, I’ll certainly spend my last few moments cursing my seat belt.
I’m perfectly in favor of SENSIBLE concealed carry laws. By sensible, I mean laws which require training and knowledge. While “an armed society is a polite society” is a naive (if romantic) concept, there IS a grain of truth. A WELL-armed and TRAINED society is safer than one where ONLY the criminals have guns.
Sure, it’d be great to do away with them altogether. However, that’s a hopelessly optimistic goal, unless we want to trample on everyone’s privacy to the point where it is no longer meaningless. There are simply too many guns out there for us to wish them away, and until a sensible method for getting RID of them, entirely, comes along, all you accomplish by telling good citizens they can’t own them and use them to protect themselves and others is to empower the lice.
And before anyone throws out the challenges, yes, I’m perfectly aware that arming everyone isn’t the answer either; some people simply aren’t capable of acting decisively in such circumstances. Even those who think they are might hesitate. That IS part of a valid argument against such laws, but it is only a part, and must be weighed against the opposite benefits. I’m also aware that people snap; if someone can prove that people snap more often than people get the opportunity to defend innocent life, there’s a decent opposition. Lastly, I’m aware that kids get into accidents with dad’s gun; kids also get into accidents with the kitchen cutlery, and teenagers get into accidents with body parts rubbing together. Education would be the answer here, now wouldn’t it?
I’m a bit of a gun enthusiast, mainly because it runs in the family. I’ve shot target rifle ever since I was 13 years old, and my stepfather owned several guns and kept them in my house for as long as I can remember. And believe me, I NEVER would have gotten into them, because I was raised from a very early age to respect the power of a gun and to realize that they aren’t toys. I only wish that the parents of the Littleton murderers had cared to teach their children about how dangerous guns are. This obviously isn’t a cure-all, but it certainly would have helped.
Jon,
This isn’t Adam-12, Hawaii 5-0, or Cops.
“perps”, “capped” and the like are used to depersonalize situations and I, for one, hate their use.
Did you deliberately misunderstand my scenario? I was refering to all the accidental shootings done by well-educated adults, not children. These can be and are documented, unlike all the “I scared a burglar off with my trusty .357” stories the N.R.A. likes to trot out. Yes, studies show that accidental shootings are an epidemic in this country.
As regards your imaginary country where only criminals have guns, where the HELL do you think those criminals are getting the guns.
The are stolen from houses of law-abiding citizens. The are sold by “gun collectors” at swap meets and through the want ads. These are big holes we “anti-gun fanatics” could have plugged years ago if it weren’t for the lobby efforts of the N.R.A.
The supposed right to own a gun VS. The right to life. Why the hell is there even a debate?
“When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro.”
Hunter Thompson
Since 50 armed guards aren’t reasonable, how about 1 guard and several well trained, screened, arms-carrying adults? I still think one would have gotten one of the shooters had they had the opportunity because they had the tool.
I completely agree with you about the need for law-abiding dealers.
And, you’re right that we can’t always tell beforehand who’s honest and responsible. But we can get close with diligent background checks. And although “heretofore honest people with guns kill and maim a lot of people.”, it’s a lot less than are killed and maimed by criminals. And I for one want the means to stop the criminals in their intent to kill and/or maim me.
Responding to Slythe:
“Most law-abiding citizens are killed by OTHER law-abiding citizens.” I disagree. With the exception of spouse abuse and child abuse, most law-abiding citizens killed in this country are killed by criminals. And, most of the time, the law-abiding citizen was unarmed and the criminal knew it. The background checks I referred to earlier should take spousal and child abuse into consideration.
Jon Morse said it well:
"In the states where concealed carry laws have been enacted, the incidence of pointless gunplay has decreased. There’s a very logical reason for this; most people who engage in this sort of behavior do so with an expectation that either (a) they’ll have immediate power over those they’re terrorizing or (b) they’ll last long enough until the cops show to get their names on the news before they’re dead.
Ever since the time a guy tried to terrorize a cafeteria in Florida only to get capped within a couple of minutes by a customer with a concealed carry permit, the incidents have decreased."
As I did, he advocates not an irresponsible free-for-all regarding gun ownership, but thorough background checks and rigorous training.
[[In the states where concealed carry laws have been enacted, the incidence of pointless gunplay has decreased. There’s a very logical reason for this; most people who engage in this sort of behavior do so with an expectation that either (a) they’ll have immediate power over those they’re terrorizing or (b) they’ll last long enough until the cops show to get their names on the news before they’re dead.]] Jon
Do you really think we have a statistically significant sample on this yet? I find it a little tough to believe that many potential gun misusers much factor in the notion of a concealed weapons law.
[[Since 50 armed guards aren’t reasonable, how about 1 guard and several well trained, screened, arms-carrying adults? I still think one would have gotten one of the shooters had they had the opportunity because they had the tool.]]
I think that is a pretty irresponsible suggestion, given that there was an armed guard on site, and that these kids were very formidably armed.
[[I completely agree with you about the need for law-abiding dealers.]]
That implies laws, of course.
[[And although “heretofore honest people with guns kill and maim a lot of people.”, it’s a lot less than are killed and maimed by criminals]]
Any basis for that suggestion? Obviously, we are talking about people who weren’t violent criminals before shooting someone dead.