Texas Teachers packing heat

[Hirschof]

When you consider how well armed this country is, 5/100,000 is a really low ratio. It would be great for it to be lower but sacrificing our rights is not the way to go.

[Dr. Tower]

Oh, by the way gun control does not make communities safer.

[adciv]

The only mention I have heard about Minutemen was around last year when they wanted to start a program about keeping them dirty mexicans where they belong.

You mean Germany doesn't enforce their own border entry laws? Or as opposed to what Europe is doing?

People getting killed by firearms is 0.12 in 100.000 inhabitants in germany. 3.45 in 100.000 inhabitants in the US. So almost 30 times as much.

In which over half of those in the US are suicides. I doubt limiting guns is going to affect the suicide rate. Oh, and Luxemburg has a murder rate twice that of the US and ten times that of Germany, while not allowing any guns. By your logic, shouldn't they have fewer murders?

[Hirschof]

About cultures: And we are all of one mindset?

Did I say that? No, I said different. For the love of God, I know of the different cultures and mindsets in Europe and especially Germany but most of them aren't close to that of the different types of American sub-cultures. I said the U.S. doesn't have one or a few and I made a point that I know about the variety in Europe.

Again, for the last time. Different history and cultures.

Without looking it up, that was way before 200 years, right? Or did you use them again? The only mention I have heard about Minutemen was around last year when they wanted to start a program about keeping them dirty mexicans where they belong.

Yeah, I missed the 200 part, which is why I went back and deleted it. I'm at work and reading too fast. But the rest of what I said still holds true.

Yes, that is exactly how I see it. Not as a right. Also, so it is in your constitution or in the amendments, it´s not like they haven´t been changed in the past.

I think resolving the slavery and equal rights issues is on a different level then protecting yourself.

If memory serves me right, there is one state where it is still legal to take up arms against your government if something goes wrong. Numberplate reads life free or die. And it´s not Texas

If I'm taking arms against my government, I'm not concerned about the legal issue of it. I think the Americans in the 1700s are good testament to that.

And that is the viewpoint of many, you are only one upping each other. It´s the arms race all over again, only on a personal level.

Look I'm not ignoring the amount of gun violence in the US but striping my right to own and wield a gun is not the way to resolve those issues. There are too many ways to access illegal weaponry in this country and we don't have the proper system or mindset to handle the type of gun laws Germany has. It won't work here. (Not now, anyways.)

As for the statistics I'm not sure where to pull numbers for you. We have some resourceful people here so I'm sure someone will oblige you. I know the numbers will be much higher and like I said before, those are the implied risks we take.

And I'll take it.

[Gowerlypuff]

Oh, by the way gun control does not make communities safer.

congratulations. You have managed to link the most biased and appalling article in the history of mankind.

This article did not try to point out any countries that banned firearms' murder rates before and after the banning of guns, or mention any countries that ban guns and have a LOWER murder and suicide rate (of which there are many).

The article has a point in that if you want to kill each other, you'll find a way too, and with the US being the melting pot of many cultures, you guys find many reasons to kill each other (as do we). My fear is that by arming everyone, you find it possible to do that much more, and that does seem to be the case.

[Deacon]

There's so much here I don't even know where to start. Where gun laws make obtaining and carrying a weapon an easy proposition, violent crime decreases. This isn't a difficult concept: if the good guys can fight back, the bad guys go where the pickings are easier. Instead, we have people like Gowerly and Lucksi pontificating about the possibility of some otherwise law abiding citizen going crazy rather than the number of lives that are saved in the mean time and the fact that should the suddenly-crazy guy start going off, he won't get far.

I'd rather be able to defend myself than be a chalk outline by the time the police eventually show up. I know that makes me some dumbass American who just doesn't understand that you eliminate violent crime by wishing it away, but still.

[adciv]

Lucksi, you're the one that brought up the minuteman group and immigration.

Gowerlypuff, Ah, so any article that you don't agree with is biased? I don't see you denying the numbers that show that more guns do not automatically equate to more crime. As to differences between before and after guns being banned. How about the UK for an example? Warning, PDF, Page 15 From Parliament itself. More info here on significant changes in UK law.

[Dr. Tower]

Oh, by the way gun control does not make communities safer.

congratulations. You have managed to link the most biased and appalling article in the history of mankind.

That article came from the Harvard Law review, one of the most liberal publications in the U.S., so yes, it is a biased source. Biased for gun control, and yet from sifting through the other studies that have been done they have not found a positive correlation between gun control and safer communities. Also, where is the supposed British sense of understatement, or is this article, in fact, more biased and appalling than the UNABOMBER manifesto? Mein Kompf?

This article did not try to point out any countries that banned firearms' murder rates before and after the banning of guns, or mention any countries that ban guns and have a LOWER murder and suicide rate (of which there are many).

murder in Europe was at an all‐time low before the gun controls were introduced.

Page 654, emphasis in original.

I understand that you and Lucksi have a different world view. However, the raw data does not back up that world view.

[Deacon]

I understand that you and Lucksi have a different world view. However, the raw data does not back up that world view.

Yes. Thank you. That's exactly what I was trying to say but couldn't figure out the proper way to say it, so I abstained.

[Hirschof]

I didn´t bring up the minutemen, that was Hirshof. But now he has edited his post.

Yes, I admitted to making a mistake and edited it. Yet he didn't mention the example from the 1800/1900s.

"Different world view." Thank you.

When it comes down to it, many Americans are not comfortable with giving up their rights to protect themselves and possibly (and probably eventually) from tyranny (corrupt government).

I also noticed he didn't say anything about this.

I want to own a gun. I want to be able to put a bullet in the guy that might try to hurt my children and rape my wife. I want to have the option to defend my family from someone who has no morals, no scruples, and no cares. I want my 4'11" tall wife to be able to go to work with the ability to defend herself from a man three times her weight. I want the right.

[Gowerlypuff]

It is a depressing time, if that article is correct (and you should read it, whoever wrote it seems incredibly in favour of everyone having M4A1s), where you may be safer carrying around a handgun.

The truth of it is, I simply don't trust anyone who feels it's necessary to walk around carrying a gun. It smacks of paranoia and a deep rooted mistrust in their society. Maybe I'm naive, but I simply cannot believe that giving everyone the ability to end the life of someone else from a distance makes communities safer. I can understand the extremely rare cases where, should someone decide to threaten someone else, you can stop them, but the only reason they can do that is that THEY have a gun in the first place.

That article, as I said, does not highlight countries where murder rates are low and guns are banned. It highlights the highest offending countries, where socio-economic situations have worsened in recent times and crime is rampant, so of course murders and suicides are going to be higher, with or without guns. There are too many dependent variables polluting the data for it to be really taken seriously. Countries like the UK have seen violent crime decrease since the banning of guns. This may be due to other factors, but we really haven't gotten ourselves in shape economically in that time.

I would like to see an article that doesn't take quite so tainted samples, if one exists. I'm not sure Lawyers should be working too closely with statistics

The whole corrupt government thing is such a sham, too. Even now, when your government is moved by the church (which, by the way, your constitution forbids, it's for the separation, yet so many things Bush has implemented are based around his religion), nobody has decided it's corrupt. Nobody ever will, and even then, nobody's going to take up arms against them. It's a pathetic reason which will never be used, because the populace, as a whole, are a bunch of pussies. Individuals, sure, are well thinking, right-minded people, who may have the courage to rise up, but you'll never do it together.

Anyway, I've gone against what I said. There's no point in me discussing this. You disagree with me, fine. I disagree with you, too, and with the exception of that article, which is terribly flawed (even the grammar sucks in places), I can't see how this is a good thing for you.

As I said, though. the US has a huge amount of cultural and economic diversity and in those situations things can get strained. There's a lot of religous beliefs, and a huge class based divide. When you have a country that prides itself on freedom and has such a massively diverse populace, people are always going to want to kill each other. As the Sniper said in TF2, "So long as there are two people left in the world, someone is going to want someone else dead"

[Hirschof]

Individuals, sure, are well thinking, right-minded people, who may have the courage to rise up, but you'll never do it together.

I wonder how many times through human history something like that has been said.

Yeah, I didn´t reply to that and to some other thing you posted about the amendments cause it would have been highly sarcastic and offensive. So I deleted it.

Or another attack/question about my rights? I guess it doesn't matter, I've said what I wanted to say.

[adciv]

So that´s why I asked what your article has to do with it? It says nothing that we have civilians (better yet, armed ones) patrolling our borders.

I hadn't heard that the minutemen were armed. Do you have information I don't? And as I said, you were the one who brought them and immigration up.

The truth of it is, I simply don't trust anyone who feels it's necessary to walk around carrying a gun.

How about those who keep one in their home?

I can understand the extremely rare cases where, should someone decide to threaten someone else, you can stop them, but the only reason they can do that is that THEY have a gun in the first place.

Or if THEY have a knife, club, or simply great hulking muscles. A gun is not the only thing an unarmed person may be threatened with.

Countries like the UK have seen violent crime decrease since the banning of guns. This may be due to other factors, but we really haven't gotten ourselves in shape economically in that time.

And yet it is still five times higher than in the US. US violent crime rate 469.2/100,000 PDF, Page 12, UK Violent Crime Rate 2300/100,000 Oh yes, here's a town that saw a decrease by making guns mandatory.link

I would like to see an article that doesn't take quite so tainted samples, if one exists. I'm not sure Lawyers should be working too closely with statistics

You could try finding ones that support your own case.

The whole corrupt government thing is such a sham, too. Even now, when your government is moved by the church

Which church? Unlike the UK, we do not have a single national church.

As I said, though. the US has a huge amount of cultural and economic diversity and in those situations things can get strained. There's a lot of religous beliefs, and a huge class based divide. When you have a country that prides itself on freedom and has such a massively diverse populace, people are always going to want to kill each other.

So, guns don't necessarily translate to more murders? There could be other things? Things that make guns an independent factor?

[Deacon]

It is a depressing time ... where you may be safer carrying around a handgun.

You're always safer being armed. How could you not be? Do you think this was somehow not the case in, say, the 50's? Or the 30's? Or the 1800's? Or the 1700's? Or the middle ages? Or during the time of the Roman empire's conquest? Or when we were hooting and throwing feces at each other (and no, I don't mean during the Democratic National Convention)?

The truth of it is, I simply don't trust anyone who feels it's necessary to walk around carrying a gun. It smacks of paranoia and a deep rooted mistrust in their society. Maybe I'm naive

I'd certainly say you are, yes. It's never necessary until it becomes necessary. It's better to have it and not need it than to need it and not have it, as the saying goes. It's insurance, except that it's also preventative. The areas with the most concealed carry permits and the highest percentage of armed households are somehow also the areas with the least violent crimes, and the opposite is true as well (fewest legal arms, highest crime -- see DC for example, where the whole 2nd Amendment challenge in the US Supreme Court came from recently). Why is that, then, if not due to potential criminals deciding it's not worth risking their lives over? Is there something we're missing? And yes, a healthy mistrust of the criminal elements of society is a good thing; no, it's not paranoia. Regardless, the really awesome thing is that we're talking about the right to protect yourself, not even the requirement to do so. If you have some sort of personal philosophy that it's better to be unable to protect yourself and your family (a view that may change once you have a family of your own), then by all means refuse to provide yourself the means to do so. But don't strip me of my right to do otherwise.

I simply cannot believe that giving everyone the ability to end the life of someone else from a distance makes communities safer.

This is where it helps to educate yourself so that you can see how you're wrong and adjust accordingly.

I can understand the extremely rare cases where, should someone decide to threaten someone else, you can stop them, but the only reason they can do that is that THEY have a gun in the first place.

This is an odd assertion, unless you're assuming things and/or taking things for granted that you haven't spelled out here. I can be threatened with many things, not just a gun, but let's supposed that a criminal's got a gun and is using it to rob me or to arm himself before invading my home. Is it your assumption that the criminal in question has attained the gun through perfectly legal means? Or that my arming myself has provided him with that gun? Do you believe that if we prevent any law-abiding citizen from obtaining, keeping, or bearing arms, then criminals will give them up, too? It's hard to tell what you're arguing, here, but nothing I can come up with to fill in your blanks is helping your argument at all.

I'm not sure Lawyers should be working too closely with statistics

What do you mean? Aren't you arguing for laws to be put in place based on statistics we have yet to see, and aren't your arguments based purely on assertions regarding those statistics? How about you provide a single study that shows that law abiding citizens arming themselves in self defense increases violent crime? Hell, bring it from the most biased, crazy-eyed gun control nuts you can find.

The whole corrupt government thing is such a sham, too. Even now, when your government is moved by the church (which, by the way, your constitution forbids, it's for the separation, yet so many things Bush has implemented are based around his religion), nobody has decided it's corrupt. Nobody ever will, and even then, nobody's going to take up arms against them. It's a pathetic reason which will never be used, because the populace, as a whole, are a bunch of pussies. Individuals, sure, are well thinking, right-minded people, who may have the courage to rise up, but you'll never do it together.

My god. It's like you've completely forgotten your history.

There are a number of myths surrounding Hitler's disarming of the populace and supposed quotes and such, but I suggest checking out http://www.straightdope.com/mailbag/mhitlergun.html for most of the real story. As the writer of that article does, I also suggest checking out some interesting reading, such as Leni Yahli's The Holocaust, which has a chapter discussing armed resistance by Jews, including rebellions with just a few firearms and a lot of courage. Also see Israel Guttman's book Resistance: The Warsaw Ghetto Uprising, which discusses the difficulty the Jews faced in obtaining weapons. One of the sources debunking the myth of Hitler having imposed new gun control on an already famously over-regulated German populace does posit that "if the population of Eastern Europe were as well armed as the average American, the Nazis would have lost much of their military capacity attempting to implement the Holocaust." No, Godwin need not be referenced, here.

There's no point in me discussing this.

There isn't if you refuse to think about and discuss this rationally, no. Regardless, you've drifted away from the topic of teachers who have jumped through all the red-tape hoops being armed in order to protect themselves and their charges from those who would do them harm.

As I said, though. the US has a huge amount of cultural and economic diversity and in those situations things can get strained. There's a lot of religous beliefs, and a huge class based divide. When you have a country that prides itself on freedom and has such a massively diverse populace, people are always going to want to kill each other. As the Sniper said in TF2, "So long as there are two people left in the world, someone is going to want someone else dead"

As revealing of prejudice as your initial statements are, the rest of this paragraph reads like the conclusion to an argument for the right of the people to arm themselves in defense.

[Gowerlypuff]

Well, either I'm blind, or it's not immediately obvious what that school is. I assume it's a highschool. I understand it's far away from the sheriff's office, meaning that it's not easy to protect that way, and people feel that as it's accessible by heavily used highway this could make it a target.

I'm not 100% sure these school shootings are random, though, are they? I know they can be, but has anyone done any research into why they happen? Is it not more likely to be a crazed pupil or something?

This can be strawmanned either way, to "protecting the kids from crazy people, because school shootings happen all the time" to "how long is it before a pissed off teacher sprays their class?" and "how long before a pissed off student gets the gun and opens fire?". Are the teacher's allowed the guns in the classrooms?

The article seems rather vague and badly worded ("and must ammunition to minimise ricocheting"?).

I hope mostly for everyone's sake that having a crazed nutjob turn up and try to gun down the school is a more common occurrance than one of the kids getting a teacher's gun and taking a class out or one of the teacher's losing it.