Ban Gun-Free Zones to Halt Mass Shootings
- M1P90
- Forum Supporter
- Posts: 324
- Joined: 20 Aug 2008, 08:19
- Location: Socialist Republic of Mass.
- Contact:
Ban Gun-Free Zones to Halt Mass Shootings
:thumb: This is a good article with some important facts that I didn’t even know. Please pass this along. Thanks.
Banning gun-free zones and allowing teachers to carry concealed weapons could help eliminate mass shootings at schools, John R. Lott, one of the nation's leading gun experts, tells Newsmax in an exclusive interview Saturday.
Lott, an author and college professor, told Newsmax that gun-free zones become “a magnet” for deranged killers who hope to burn their names into the history books by running up a big body count.
Lott’s landmark book "More Guns, Less Crime: Understanding Crime and Gun Control Laws" is in its 3rd edition. He told Newsmax there is a “very good chance” the Connecticut school shooting could have been averted, if teachers there were permitted to carry concealed handguns.
It is no accident, he said, that mass shootings repeatedly have occurred in designated gun-free zones, which attract lunatics looking to murder as many souls as possible before they turn their guns on themselves.
Newsmax: Dr. Lott, your work suggests people are more secure, rather than less so, when firearms are readily available in society.
Dr. Lott: Simply telling them to behave passively turns out to be pretty bad advice . . . By far the safest course of action for people to take, when they are confronting a criminal, is to have a gun. This is particularly true for the people in our society who are the most vulnerable.
Newsmax: The media typically spins these mass shootings as an American phenomenon. They suggest we ought to be more like Europe, with strong gun control, because then we would not have these problems. Is that true?
Dr. Lott: No. Europe has a lot of multiple victim shootings. If you look at a per capita rate, the rate of multiple-victim public shootings in Europe and the United States over the last 10 years have been fairly similar to each other. A couple of years ago you had a couple of big shootings in Finland. About two-and-a-half years ago you had a big shooting in the U.K., 12 people were killed.
You had Norway last year [where 77 died]. Two years ago, you had the shooting in Austria at a Sikh Temple. There have been several multiple-victim public shootings in France over the last couple of years. Over the last decade, you’ve had a couple of big school shootings in Germany. Germany in terms of modern incidents has two of the four worst public-school shootings, and they have very strict gun-control laws. The one common feature of all of those shootings in Europe is that they all take place in gun-free zones, in places where guns are supposed to be banned.
Newsmax: Can you give readers an example of an incident where a teacher or authority-figure with a gun was able to thwart a violent shooting?
Dr. Lott: There was the university case in the Appalachian law school. You had the K through 12 in Mississippi and the one in Edinboro, Pa. You had New Life Church [in December 2007] — you had 7,000 parishioners there when the person broke into the church with about a thousand rounds of ammunition.
But there was a woman there, a former Chicago police officer who had gotten a concealed handgun permit because she was being stalked by her ex-husband. She had asked permission from the minister there to be able to carry a concealed handgun. She was worried if she couldn’t carry it at the church there, that she would be vulnerable going to and from the church. She shot at him 10 times, wounding him, and he committed suicide . . . These types of cases occur all around us, and they usually don’t get much attention, especially if they are stopped before people are injured or killed.
Newsmax: How can society prevent such mass shootings, or are they avoidable at all?
Dr. Lott: About 75 percent of the time when these attacks occur, the killers themselves die at the scene. Even the times when they don’t die, it seems pretty clear their intent was to die, but they just couldn’t bring themselves to commit suicide, pull the trigger, and shoot themselves at the last moment.
But in their warped mind, what they want to do is commit suicide in a way that will get them attention, so people know who they were when they were here. I’s a pretty sick idea, but if you read the documents that they leave, the diaries and the video tapes, it is pretty clear that these guys know that they get more attention the more people they can kill.
So their goal is to try to kill as many people as possible. So there are two issues here. One is focusing on the attention. And I think it’s pretty clear that . . . if people stopped mentioning their names — I'm not saying that’s possible — that’s one thing that would reduce their incentive to go and commit these crimes.
The second thing is to give people the option to protect themselves. One of the things I’ve written about recently is the attack at the Aurora, Colorado movie theater. There, you have seven movie theaters that were showing the Batman movie when it opened at the end of July.
Out of those seven movie theaters, only one movie theater was posted as banning permit-concealed handguns. The killer didn’t go to the movie theater that was closest to his home. He didn’t go to the movie theater that was the largest movie theater in Colorado, which was essentially the same distance from his apartment as the one he ended up going to. Instead, the one he picked was the only one of those movie theaters that banned people taking permit-concealed handguns into that theater.
The problem is, whether it is the Portland shooting earlier this week, or the Connecticut shooting Friday, or the Sikh temple attack in Wisconsin, time after time these attacks take place in the few areas within a state where permit-concealed handguns are banned. It’s not just this year, it’s all these years in the past. And at some point people have to recognize that despite the obvious desire to make places safe by banning guns, it unintentionally has the opposite effect.
When you ban guns, rather than making it safer for the victims, you unintentionally make it safer for the criminals, because they have less to worry about. If you had a violent criminal stalking you or your family, and was really seriously threatening you, would you feel safer putting a sign up in front of your home stating, “This home is a gun-free zone.”
My guess is you wouldn’t do that. And I’ve never run into any gun-control proponents who would do that either. And the reason is pretty clear: Putting a sign there saying this is a gun-free home isn’t going to cause the criminals to say, ‘Oh, I don’t want to break the law, so I’m not going to go in and attack these people.’ It encourages them to do it. It serves as a magnet for him, if he’s going to engage in this attack, that that’s the place where he is going to engage in, because he finds that it is going to be easier to do it there.
Yet every time we have one of these mass shooting incidents, it renews the call from the media and the left for banning guns.
I believe that the people who are pushing for these gun controls are well intentioned. I think they’re wrong. I think the things they’re going to make life more dangerous. But it’s understandable. If you see something bad that happens, and it happens with a gun, the natural reaction is: ‘Well, if I take the gun away, bad things won’t happen anymore.’ The problem is you have to realize that when you go and ban guns, you may only take them away from good law-abiding citizens and not the criminals. And to disarm good law-abiding citizens . . . you just make it easier for crime to occur, not harder.
You also have to think about self defense. They say bad things happen with guns. But the news rarely covers people using guns defensively to stop crimes from happening. And that has a huge impact on people’s perceptions about the costs and benefits of guns.
Newsmax: So can you give us a correlation between crime rates in jurisdictions that try to ban concealed guns and the crime rate in those that do not?
If you look over past data, before everyone that was adopting [concealed carry laws], you find that for each additional state that adopted a right-to-carry law . . . you’d see about a 1.5 percent drop in murder rates, and about 2 percent drop in rape and robbery . . . Just because states are right-to-carry doesn’t mean they’ve issued the same number of fees. You have big differences in states’ training requirements.
The bottom line seems to be when you make it costly for people to get permits, fewer people get permits. You particularly price out people who live in high-crime urban areas from being able to get permits, and those are the ones who benefit the most from having the option to defend themselves.
Newsmax: Do gun free zones invite these attacks?
Dr. Lott: Yes, they’re magnets for these attacks. They make them more likely. These gun-free zones are really tiny areas within a state, and yet that’s where these attacks occur time after time.
Whenever you see more than a few murders taking place, the odds are almost a hundred percent that they are going to occur at a place where permit-concealed handguns are banned. And they were doing it, ironically, in an attempt to try and make people safe. But the problem is it is law-abiding citizens who obey those bans, not the criminals.
Look at Virginia Tech, for example, where we had 32 people killed. If you were an adult with a concealed handgun permit, you could take your permit-concealed handgun virtually anyplace in the state, except for universities and a couple of other places. There are hardly any gun-free zones in Virginia. And yet, if you were a faculty member and you accidentally carried your permit-concealed handgun onto university owned property there, and you got caught, you were going to get fired and your academic career would be over.
You're not going to get an academic job anyplace in the country. Same thing with the students: If you get expelled for a firearm-related violation, your academic career is over. Those are real penalties. Those people’s lives are going to be dramatically changed. But if you take somebody who is a killer . . . you would be facing 32 death penalties or 32 life sentences, plus other charges. And the notion that somehow the charge of expulsion from school would be the key penalty that would keep them from doing it, not 32 death penalties, is absurd. It just doesn’t make any sense . . . It represents a much bigger real penalty for the law-abiding good citizens than it does for the criminals there.
So we have to think about who is going to be obeying these laws. And it’s true for gun-control laws generally. One of the things I try and do in "More Guns, Less Crime" is show what happens to gun rates when guns are banned. It would be nice if things were that simple, that going and banning guns would eliminate crime.
But what you find happening is murder rates and violent crime rates go up. And the question is why. It’s a pretty simple answer: Because the law-abiding citizens are the ones who turn in their guns, and not the criminals.
Newsmax: Would it be a good idea to have teachers who have concealed carry permits in the schools, to better protect kids?
I’m all for that. I’ve been a teacher most of my life. I’ve been an academic. I have kids in college still, and kids below that. It’s not something that I take lightly. But it’s hard to see what the argument would be against it.
People may not realize this, but we allowed permit-concealed handguns in schools prior to the ironically named Safe School Zone Act. And no one that I know has been able to point to a single bad thing that occurred, not one.
We changed the law, and we started having these public-school shootings. So I don’t think they got the intended result that they were hoping for with that type of ban. Right now, [some jurisdictions] allow you to carry concealed-permit guns in the schools. There are not a lot of them. But there are no problems that have occurred with any of those states, either.
Newsmax: Could arming teachers and getting rid of gun-free zones have averted a tragedy such as we saw in Connecticut?
Well, I think two things would happen. One is, we see the way these killers search out places where people can’t defend themselves. So I think there’s at least a very good chance that if it is known teachers and others there would have permit-concealed handguns, it would have dissuaded the attack from occurring to begin with. Secondly, even if he did attack, it would be by far the safest course of action.
The amount of time that elapses between when the attack starts and when someone can get to the scene with a gun is very important in determining what the carnage is going to be. The faster you can get somebody [there], the more you can limit it. If you could get the police there in 8 minutes, which would be record time, that would be an eon for people who are there helplessly having to face the killer by themselves with no protection.
Read Latest Breaking News from Newsmax.com http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/Lott-g ... z2FJHYk12K" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Banning gun-free zones and allowing teachers to carry concealed weapons could help eliminate mass shootings at schools, John R. Lott, one of the nation's leading gun experts, tells Newsmax in an exclusive interview Saturday.
Lott, an author and college professor, told Newsmax that gun-free zones become “a magnet” for deranged killers who hope to burn their names into the history books by running up a big body count.
Lott’s landmark book "More Guns, Less Crime: Understanding Crime and Gun Control Laws" is in its 3rd edition. He told Newsmax there is a “very good chance” the Connecticut school shooting could have been averted, if teachers there were permitted to carry concealed handguns.
It is no accident, he said, that mass shootings repeatedly have occurred in designated gun-free zones, which attract lunatics looking to murder as many souls as possible before they turn their guns on themselves.
Newsmax: Dr. Lott, your work suggests people are more secure, rather than less so, when firearms are readily available in society.
Dr. Lott: Simply telling them to behave passively turns out to be pretty bad advice . . . By far the safest course of action for people to take, when they are confronting a criminal, is to have a gun. This is particularly true for the people in our society who are the most vulnerable.
Newsmax: The media typically spins these mass shootings as an American phenomenon. They suggest we ought to be more like Europe, with strong gun control, because then we would not have these problems. Is that true?
Dr. Lott: No. Europe has a lot of multiple victim shootings. If you look at a per capita rate, the rate of multiple-victim public shootings in Europe and the United States over the last 10 years have been fairly similar to each other. A couple of years ago you had a couple of big shootings in Finland. About two-and-a-half years ago you had a big shooting in the U.K., 12 people were killed.
You had Norway last year [where 77 died]. Two years ago, you had the shooting in Austria at a Sikh Temple. There have been several multiple-victim public shootings in France over the last couple of years. Over the last decade, you’ve had a couple of big school shootings in Germany. Germany in terms of modern incidents has two of the four worst public-school shootings, and they have very strict gun-control laws. The one common feature of all of those shootings in Europe is that they all take place in gun-free zones, in places where guns are supposed to be banned.
Newsmax: Can you give readers an example of an incident where a teacher or authority-figure with a gun was able to thwart a violent shooting?
Dr. Lott: There was the university case in the Appalachian law school. You had the K through 12 in Mississippi and the one in Edinboro, Pa. You had New Life Church [in December 2007] — you had 7,000 parishioners there when the person broke into the church with about a thousand rounds of ammunition.
But there was a woman there, a former Chicago police officer who had gotten a concealed handgun permit because she was being stalked by her ex-husband. She had asked permission from the minister there to be able to carry a concealed handgun. She was worried if she couldn’t carry it at the church there, that she would be vulnerable going to and from the church. She shot at him 10 times, wounding him, and he committed suicide . . . These types of cases occur all around us, and they usually don’t get much attention, especially if they are stopped before people are injured or killed.
Newsmax: How can society prevent such mass shootings, or are they avoidable at all?
Dr. Lott: About 75 percent of the time when these attacks occur, the killers themselves die at the scene. Even the times when they don’t die, it seems pretty clear their intent was to die, but they just couldn’t bring themselves to commit suicide, pull the trigger, and shoot themselves at the last moment.
But in their warped mind, what they want to do is commit suicide in a way that will get them attention, so people know who they were when they were here. I’s a pretty sick idea, but if you read the documents that they leave, the diaries and the video tapes, it is pretty clear that these guys know that they get more attention the more people they can kill.
So their goal is to try to kill as many people as possible. So there are two issues here. One is focusing on the attention. And I think it’s pretty clear that . . . if people stopped mentioning their names — I'm not saying that’s possible — that’s one thing that would reduce their incentive to go and commit these crimes.
The second thing is to give people the option to protect themselves. One of the things I’ve written about recently is the attack at the Aurora, Colorado movie theater. There, you have seven movie theaters that were showing the Batman movie when it opened at the end of July.
Out of those seven movie theaters, only one movie theater was posted as banning permit-concealed handguns. The killer didn’t go to the movie theater that was closest to his home. He didn’t go to the movie theater that was the largest movie theater in Colorado, which was essentially the same distance from his apartment as the one he ended up going to. Instead, the one he picked was the only one of those movie theaters that banned people taking permit-concealed handguns into that theater.
The problem is, whether it is the Portland shooting earlier this week, or the Connecticut shooting Friday, or the Sikh temple attack in Wisconsin, time after time these attacks take place in the few areas within a state where permit-concealed handguns are banned. It’s not just this year, it’s all these years in the past. And at some point people have to recognize that despite the obvious desire to make places safe by banning guns, it unintentionally has the opposite effect.
When you ban guns, rather than making it safer for the victims, you unintentionally make it safer for the criminals, because they have less to worry about. If you had a violent criminal stalking you or your family, and was really seriously threatening you, would you feel safer putting a sign up in front of your home stating, “This home is a gun-free zone.”
My guess is you wouldn’t do that. And I’ve never run into any gun-control proponents who would do that either. And the reason is pretty clear: Putting a sign there saying this is a gun-free home isn’t going to cause the criminals to say, ‘Oh, I don’t want to break the law, so I’m not going to go in and attack these people.’ It encourages them to do it. It serves as a magnet for him, if he’s going to engage in this attack, that that’s the place where he is going to engage in, because he finds that it is going to be easier to do it there.
Yet every time we have one of these mass shooting incidents, it renews the call from the media and the left for banning guns.
I believe that the people who are pushing for these gun controls are well intentioned. I think they’re wrong. I think the things they’re going to make life more dangerous. But it’s understandable. If you see something bad that happens, and it happens with a gun, the natural reaction is: ‘Well, if I take the gun away, bad things won’t happen anymore.’ The problem is you have to realize that when you go and ban guns, you may only take them away from good law-abiding citizens and not the criminals. And to disarm good law-abiding citizens . . . you just make it easier for crime to occur, not harder.
You also have to think about self defense. They say bad things happen with guns. But the news rarely covers people using guns defensively to stop crimes from happening. And that has a huge impact on people’s perceptions about the costs and benefits of guns.
Newsmax: So can you give us a correlation between crime rates in jurisdictions that try to ban concealed guns and the crime rate in those that do not?
If you look over past data, before everyone that was adopting [concealed carry laws], you find that for each additional state that adopted a right-to-carry law . . . you’d see about a 1.5 percent drop in murder rates, and about 2 percent drop in rape and robbery . . . Just because states are right-to-carry doesn’t mean they’ve issued the same number of fees. You have big differences in states’ training requirements.
The bottom line seems to be when you make it costly for people to get permits, fewer people get permits. You particularly price out people who live in high-crime urban areas from being able to get permits, and those are the ones who benefit the most from having the option to defend themselves.
Newsmax: Do gun free zones invite these attacks?
Dr. Lott: Yes, they’re magnets for these attacks. They make them more likely. These gun-free zones are really tiny areas within a state, and yet that’s where these attacks occur time after time.
Whenever you see more than a few murders taking place, the odds are almost a hundred percent that they are going to occur at a place where permit-concealed handguns are banned. And they were doing it, ironically, in an attempt to try and make people safe. But the problem is it is law-abiding citizens who obey those bans, not the criminals.
Look at Virginia Tech, for example, where we had 32 people killed. If you were an adult with a concealed handgun permit, you could take your permit-concealed handgun virtually anyplace in the state, except for universities and a couple of other places. There are hardly any gun-free zones in Virginia. And yet, if you were a faculty member and you accidentally carried your permit-concealed handgun onto university owned property there, and you got caught, you were going to get fired and your academic career would be over.
You're not going to get an academic job anyplace in the country. Same thing with the students: If you get expelled for a firearm-related violation, your academic career is over. Those are real penalties. Those people’s lives are going to be dramatically changed. But if you take somebody who is a killer . . . you would be facing 32 death penalties or 32 life sentences, plus other charges. And the notion that somehow the charge of expulsion from school would be the key penalty that would keep them from doing it, not 32 death penalties, is absurd. It just doesn’t make any sense . . . It represents a much bigger real penalty for the law-abiding good citizens than it does for the criminals there.
So we have to think about who is going to be obeying these laws. And it’s true for gun-control laws generally. One of the things I try and do in "More Guns, Less Crime" is show what happens to gun rates when guns are banned. It would be nice if things were that simple, that going and banning guns would eliminate crime.
But what you find happening is murder rates and violent crime rates go up. And the question is why. It’s a pretty simple answer: Because the law-abiding citizens are the ones who turn in their guns, and not the criminals.
Newsmax: Would it be a good idea to have teachers who have concealed carry permits in the schools, to better protect kids?
I’m all for that. I’ve been a teacher most of my life. I’ve been an academic. I have kids in college still, and kids below that. It’s not something that I take lightly. But it’s hard to see what the argument would be against it.
People may not realize this, but we allowed permit-concealed handguns in schools prior to the ironically named Safe School Zone Act. And no one that I know has been able to point to a single bad thing that occurred, not one.
We changed the law, and we started having these public-school shootings. So I don’t think they got the intended result that they were hoping for with that type of ban. Right now, [some jurisdictions] allow you to carry concealed-permit guns in the schools. There are not a lot of them. But there are no problems that have occurred with any of those states, either.
Newsmax: Could arming teachers and getting rid of gun-free zones have averted a tragedy such as we saw in Connecticut?
Well, I think two things would happen. One is, we see the way these killers search out places where people can’t defend themselves. So I think there’s at least a very good chance that if it is known teachers and others there would have permit-concealed handguns, it would have dissuaded the attack from occurring to begin with. Secondly, even if he did attack, it would be by far the safest course of action.
The amount of time that elapses between when the attack starts and when someone can get to the scene with a gun is very important in determining what the carnage is going to be. The faster you can get somebody [there], the more you can limit it. If you could get the police there in 8 minutes, which would be record time, that would be an eon for people who are there helplessly having to face the killer by themselves with no protection.
Read Latest Breaking News from Newsmax.com http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/Lott-g ... z2FJHYk12K" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
- Cyberfly
- Global Moderator
- Posts: 10624
- Joined: 19 Aug 2008, 18:44
- custom title: Mens Room Attendant
- Location: SE OKlahoma
Re: Ban Gun-Free Zones to Halt Mass Shootings
"The problem is you have to realize that when you go and ban guns, you may only take them away from good law-abiding citizens and not the criminals. And to disarm good law-abiding citizens . . . you just make it easier for crime to occur, not harder.
You also have to think about self defense. They say bad things happen with guns. But the news rarely covers people using guns defensively to stop crimes from happening. And that has a huge impact on people’s perceptions about the costs and benefits of guns."
And you have to realize, too, you are dealing with people who argue with EMOTION and not logic. They're not going to listen to facts because facts fly in the face of their arguments. When you throw out numbers and truths to them, they counter with swears and epithets.
It's like playing chess with a pigeon.
You also have to think about self defense. They say bad things happen with guns. But the news rarely covers people using guns defensively to stop crimes from happening. And that has a huge impact on people’s perceptions about the costs and benefits of guns."
And you have to realize, too, you are dealing with people who argue with EMOTION and not logic. They're not going to listen to facts because facts fly in the face of their arguments. When you throw out numbers and truths to them, they counter with swears and epithets.
It's like playing chess with a pigeon.
Never confuse 'The will of the Majority' with 'The will of God'.
**This post created with 100% recycled photons!**
Re: Ban Gun-Free Zones to Halt Mass Shootings
I say The board of Education should have all teachers take a manditory firearm and self defense courses and than have them carry at work.
- Rapier1772
- Global Moderator
- Posts: 12939
- Joined: 20 Aug 2008, 09:00
- Location: Benton City, WA
Re: Ban Gun-Free Zones to Halt Mass Shootings
Would never pass. You cannot force someone to exercise their rights. They have a right to choose and they have freedom of religion which may prohibit violence of any kind. Not everyone is cut out to be a 'sheepdog.'soitsbig wrote:I say The board of Education should have all teachers take a manditory firearm and self defense courses and than have them carry at work.
But I do agree that every school should allow teachers to carry if they choose to and be provided regular training opportunities. I would prefer AT LEAST 1 out of every 3 teachers (could be more such as 2 out of three or three out of three) carry a firearm & be trained how/when to use it.
Universities show allow students & faculty to carry provided they have a CCW. I would also recommend the universities provide training courses. ISU has courses like that but the "public [un]safety" director still won't let us carry.
(Kids might turn out to be more respectful too if they find out their teacher is one of those trained to fight back)
How to post pics & videos: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=6363
Contrary to popular belief, you CAN fix stupid - it's just illegal.
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 1627
- Joined: 25 Nov 2008, 11:11
- custom title: 159.6
- Location: Somewhere in Texas
Re: Ban Gun-Free Zones to Halt Mass Shootings
Another "gun-free" zone: military bases (Ft. Hood?). There you have lots of training but no hardware. The MP's are supposed to handle it.
Just a policy ALLOWING teachers CCW ups the stakes of failure for anyone that might shoot up a school. This was the case the first year FL had CCW: criminals suddenly had a much greater POSSIBILITY of running into a gun.
+1 on the respect; an armed society is a polite one.
Just a policy ALLOWING teachers CCW ups the stakes of failure for anyone that might shoot up a school. This was the case the first year FL had CCW: criminals suddenly had a much greater POSSIBILITY of running into a gun.
+1 on the respect; an armed society is a polite one.
- Rapier1772
- Global Moderator
- Posts: 12939
- Joined: 20 Aug 2008, 09:00
- Location: Benton City, WA
Re: Ban Gun-Free Zones to Halt Mass Shootings
No offense to police but MPs will be in the same boat as cops on this one. Active shooter NOW, call to MPs, MPs organize/mobilize, arrive on scene, assess, & respond.Mister Freeze wrote:Another "gun-free" zone: military bases (Ft. Hood?). There you have lots of training but no hardware. The MP's are supposed to handle it.
Another seconds count, cops are minutes away thing. Usually less minutes for MPs but still minutes...
How to post pics & videos: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=6363
Contrary to popular belief, you CAN fix stupid - it's just illegal.
Re: Ban Gun-Free Zones to Halt Mass Shootings
I agree that school staff should be allowed to carry at school if the individual wanted to. But as Rapier stated training is the key. There are a lot of people with CCW permits who should never draw their gun in public. Anyone entrusted with carrying a gun in school to protect children should be a highly motivated individual willing to take monthly tactical training. The school district could even organize this training. I would gladly pay more in property taxes to fund such an effort.
-
- Member
- Posts: 400
- Joined: 09 Jul 2010, 09:08
Re: Ban Gun-Free Zones to Halt Mass Shootings
I think the notion of not allowing someone who has done all of the requirements to actually carry legally to not be allowed to carry certain places is absolutely insane. That said, the only place I do not carry (legal or otherwise...) is into school, which I have done before, forgetting that I have it with me :laugh: . If I went to a large university I would probably do it anyway.
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 1627
- Joined: 25 Nov 2008, 11:11
- custom title: 159.6
- Location: Somewhere in Texas
Re: Ban Gun-Free Zones to Halt Mass Shootings
I carried @ the U all the time. Nobody knew, or would, except for maybe a BG...
Re: Ban Gun-Free Zones to Halt Mass Shootings
I thought the Supreme Court overturned gun free school zones. I know in TX you can have a gun in the parking lot. You just can't carry on the premises. Through a door.
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 1627
- Joined: 25 Nov 2008, 11:11
- custom title: 159.6
- Location: Somewhere in Texas
Re: Ban Gun-Free Zones to Halt Mass Shootings
TX Castle Doctrine sez in ur car (parking lot). Any sign compliant with legal requirements carries the weight of law. Then, of course, there's the ol' tried and true 'don't ask, don't tell.'
- jgreenberg01
- Platinum Member
- Posts: 3737
- Joined: 17 Jul 2009, 14:32
- custom title: FNP-45 Cylon
- Location: Palm Coast, FL
- Contact:
Re: Ban Gun-Free Zones to Halt Mass Shootings
There is hope.
Texas town allows teachers to carry concealed guns
http://news.yahoo.com/texas-town-allows ... 17416.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;HARROLD, Texas (AP) — In this tiny Texas town, children and their parents don't give much thought to safety at the community's lone school — mostly because some of the teachers are carrying concealed weapons.
In remote Harrold, the nearest sheriff's office is 30 minutes away, and people tend to know — and trust — one another. So the school board voted to let teachers bring guns to school.
"We don't have money for a security guard, but this is a better solution," Superintendent David Thweatt said. "A shooter could take out a guard or officer with a visible, holstered weapon, but our teachers have master's degrees, are older and have had extensive training. And their guns are hidden. We can protect our children."
0100001101101111011011010110010100100000011000010110111001100100001000000111010001100001011010110110010100100000011010010111010000101110
- panzermk2
- Forum Supporter
- Posts: 12382
- Joined: 19 Aug 2008, 15:51
- Location: Pr. CEO Elite Ammunition
- Contact:
Re: Ban Gun-Free Zones to Halt Mass Shootings
jgreenberg01 wrote:There is hope.
Texas town allows teachers to carry concealed gunshttp://news.yahoo.com/texas-town-allows ... 17416.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;HARROLD, Texas (AP) — In this tiny Texas town, children and their parents don't give much thought to safety at the community's lone school — mostly because some of the teachers are carrying concealed weapons.
In remote Harrold, the nearest sheriff's office is 30 minutes away, and people tend to know — and trust — one another. So the school board voted to let teachers bring guns to school.
"We don't have money for a security guard, but this is a better solution," Superintendent David Thweatt said. "A shooter could take out a guard or officer with a visible, holstered weapon, but our teachers have master's degrees, are older and have had extensive training. And their guns are hidden. We can protect our children."
There is always hope in Texas!
Jay Wolf
Pr. Elite Ammunition
Pr. Elite Ammunition
"Engineers, the oompa-loompas of science!"
Be'ein Tachbulot Yipol Am Veteshua Berov Yoetz
Re: Ban Gun-Free Zones to Halt Mass Shootings
Just after the Connecticut shooting I began receiving emails from folks saying things like, "see...this is what guns do and this is the reason why we should ban them". In putting together a response to them I came across a really interesting Harvard Law Review article, entitled "Would Banning Firearms Reduce Murder and Suicide?". I'm not sure if this link has been posted in this Forum, but I suggest that all of our members take the time to read it if you have not already done so. The authors examine guns and gun control, comparing the US to Canada, Australia and Europe. They include a bit of history of the "militia" thing. The conclusion, which contradicts Lott a bit, indicates that there is no significant correlation either way. That is, fewer guns does not increase murder and suicide and more guns does not decrease it. The authors point to cultural and socio-economic reasons as the reason for gun violence, not the number of guns; e.g., "These statistics reinforce the point that murder rates are determined by basic socio‐cultural and economic factors rather than mere availability of some particular form of weaponry".
The article is lengthy, scholarly and heavily footnoted, so it might seem a struggle to get through it. Nonetheless, I suggest that everyone here should have a look at it and recommend it to others. The link is here: http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/org ... online.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;.
The article is lengthy, scholarly and heavily footnoted, so it might seem a struggle to get through it. Nonetheless, I suggest that everyone here should have a look at it and recommend it to others. The link is here: http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/org ... online.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;.
- jgreenberg01
- Platinum Member
- Posts: 3737
- Joined: 17 Jul 2009, 14:32
- custom title: FNP-45 Cylon
- Location: Palm Coast, FL
- Contact:
Re: Ban Gun-Free Zones to Halt Mass Shootings
Here's another great article that all the gun banning politicians should read. It's long, but it certainly brings into clear focus that we are in denial and what we can do to begin to stop violence in schools.How many killed by fire that year? Zero. But we hear people say, ‘That’s the year Columbine happened, that’s an anomaly.’ Well, in 2004 we had a new all time record — 48 dead in the schools from violence. How many killed by fire that year? Zero. Let’s assign some grades. Put your teacher hat on and give out some grades. What kind of grade do you give the firefighter for keeping kids safe? An ‘A,’ right? Reluctantly, reluctantly, the cops give the firefighters an ‘A,’ right? Danged firefighters, they sleep ‘till they’re hungry and eat ‘till they’re tired. What grade do we get for keeping the kids safe from violence? Come on, what’s our grade? Needs improvement, right?”
Johnny Firefighter, A+ Student
“Why can’t we be like little Johnny Firefighter?” Grossman asked as he prowled the stage. “He’s our A+ student!”
He paused, briefly, and answered with a voice that blew through the hall like thunder, “Denial, denial, denial!”
http://www.policeone.com/active-shooter ... is-denial/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
0100001101101111011011010110010100100000011000010110111001100100001000000111010001100001011010110110010100100000011010010111010000101110
- Rapier1772
- Global Moderator
- Posts: 12939
- Joined: 20 Aug 2008, 09:00
- Location: Benton City, WA
Re: Ban Gun-Free Zones to Halt Mass Shootings
How to post pics & videos: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=6363
Contrary to popular belief, you CAN fix stupid - it's just illegal.
- Rapier1772
- Global Moderator
- Posts: 12939
- Joined: 20 Aug 2008, 09:00
- Location: Benton City, WA
Re: Ban Gun-Free Zones to Halt Mass Shootings
I didn't have time to really study the article at the time (had a midterm - well, 1/3term in this case) & now it's at home while I'm at school.
Anyway, this was in the latest ISU Campus Newspaper:
The state of Idaho has apparently just OK'd a bill that would put guns in public schools. The guns would be in safes & select/trained teachers would have the combination in the event of an "incident." Well, at least it's something - would still prefer trained/armed teachers. If they carry concealed then the kids may never even know.
However, this new law will not apply to ISU. In the article they also let every dufus with a grudge know that guns are still not allowed on campus and not even the campus police carry. Campus police are dependent on the city police if something serious happens. Yes, the article points that out & they weren't being sarcastic, just "this is what it is." I'd have been sarcastic as hell.
Thank you 1st amendment for jeopardizing my well being. :skep:
Anyway, this was in the latest ISU Campus Newspaper:
The state of Idaho has apparently just OK'd a bill that would put guns in public schools. The guns would be in safes & select/trained teachers would have the combination in the event of an "incident." Well, at least it's something - would still prefer trained/armed teachers. If they carry concealed then the kids may never even know.
However, this new law will not apply to ISU. In the article they also let every dufus with a grudge know that guns are still not allowed on campus and not even the campus police carry. Campus police are dependent on the city police if something serious happens. Yes, the article points that out & they weren't being sarcastic, just "this is what it is." I'd have been sarcastic as hell.
Thank you 1st amendment for jeopardizing my well being. :skep:
How to post pics & videos: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=6363
Contrary to popular belief, you CAN fix stupid - it's just illegal.
- Rapier1772
- Global Moderator
- Posts: 12939
- Joined: 20 Aug 2008, 09:00
- Location: Benton City, WA
Re: Ban Gun-Free Zones to Halt Mass Shootings
Reinforce gun control?DarbyGloss wrote:Agree. Government should reinforce gun control. We've heard so many shooting incidents, especially in schools. Government should pay more attention the school security and measures needed to be taken. Maybe install metal detecting gate at the entrance and have security guards.
I think you are missing the point here, gun control is what is allowing all these shootings to take place. They are disarming the law abiding citizens and giving criminals a pass to do whatever they want because there will be no one there to stop them and criminals know it. Besides, criminals are going there to KILL people - do you seriously think saying "you can't take a gun there" is going to stop them?
The government needs to do away with gun control because the government has proven that they cannot protect us. They need to give a chance to protect ourselves.
How to post pics & videos: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=6363
Contrary to popular belief, you CAN fix stupid - it's just illegal.
- jgreenberg01
- Platinum Member
- Posts: 3737
- Joined: 17 Jul 2009, 14:32
- custom title: FNP-45 Cylon
- Location: Palm Coast, FL
- Contact:
Re: Ban Gun-Free Zones to Halt Mass Shootings
No, no, no. What we need is metal detectors that only work on bad guys. They can do that, right?
0100001101101111011011010110010100100000011000010110111001100100001000000111010001100001011010110110010100100000011010010111010000101110
- Rapier1772
- Global Moderator
- Posts: 12939
- Joined: 20 Aug 2008, 09:00
- Location: Benton City, WA
Re: Ban Gun-Free Zones to Halt Mass Shootings
Oh you're good Darby...
Regular post at first then go back & edit it to put the link in. Been there, done that - but changing the color of the font so we wont see the link hidden in your post? That's a new one with a bit more effort than the usual dregs - I missed it for a while, congrats.
Post deleted & you're banned now spammer boy. Thanks for the lesson in what to watch for.
Regular post at first then go back & edit it to put the link in. Been there, done that - but changing the color of the font so we wont see the link hidden in your post? That's a new one with a bit more effort than the usual dregs - I missed it for a while, congrats.
Post deleted & you're banned now spammer boy. Thanks for the lesson in what to watch for.
How to post pics & videos: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=6363
Contrary to popular belief, you CAN fix stupid - it's just illegal.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 23 guests