Gun free zones
 

Anyone else notice that Gun free zones are a magnet for spree shooters?

And Virginia Tech seems to produce more than its share of spree shooters... :(

Anybody notice that the amount of spree shooters vs the amount of semi-retarded trailer trash with guns is enough to warrant keeping those gun free zones?

Most spree shooters don't just attack a random place, and especially not on the grounds that it is a gun free zone. It's normally a place of work, a business, a school, etc. that was relevant to them. Gun free zones are a good thing. Pretty much every public place should remain gun free. Reason being, many people may have a gun, thus allowing them to stop a potential attacker, but the downside is, many people would have guns.

So you end up getting a mix of people, outlined as followed:

Normal people who don't walk around with fucking guns constantly

Crazy people who do walk around with fucking guns constantly

Stupid people with guns

People who cannot shoot with guns

Paranoid people with guns

People with mental disorders with guns.

So let's say that there are no 'no guns allowed' left. You can bring your gun wherever you want, and everybody else brings theirs. Got a boner yet, Deadman?

So you've got all these people with guns in a small area...let's say a public library.

One guy decides to go apeshit and shoot up the library. He runs in guns blazing, firing round after round. Inevitably, some bad ass Clint Eastwood type whips out his trusty .45 his granpappy gave him, and guns him down, thus ending his rampage.

But the guy around the corner heard the shots, and came out to see a guy dead and a guy holding a gun, so he whips out his trust .357 his grandmammy gave him, and guns him down. Well, now we got a got-derned shootout on our hands!

Everybody is flipping shit and shooting each other, because they're all walking around with guns and feel pretty badass about it.

And don't you try and pretend you don't feel badass when you wear your gun, Deadman. On a scale of 1 to Bruce Willis, when I take my gun out to target shoot I'm easily a 9. I would think that would be the time I would be most likely to act aggressively...when I'm wearing my gun outside.

This is why I advocate stricter gun laws. Let us keep our guns, sure, but instead of being able to have unlimited guns, maybe just be restricted

Hmm, I don't see it so much as a "gun-free zone issue" so much as a testament to human disgruntlement(my very own word ;)) and frustration which leads to thoughtless acts of cruelty.

It seems schools tend to be gun-free zones. I'm pretty sure than any one who's been to school can understand the pressure of bullying, apathetic authority figures, along with all the other things people have to deal with on a daily basis.

People who feel desperate tend to do desperate things. Perhaps we could figure out a way to help remove their motivation.

My whole point about the gun free school thing is this...

Why not offer vocational classes for firearms,repair,design,safety and ect.?

I mean instead of punishing an otherwise good kid for their interest in hunting or target shooting?

Maybe have a school sponsored shooting team?

I know I would rather my kid be able to choose a safer sport than Football (which causes how many major/fatal injuries on average?)

Hmm, I would have thought that fighting bullying and working towards creating a socially healthy learning environment would be a higher priority than pushing guns on children.

I do think that learning firearms safety is important, however I don't think that its appropriate for a public school setting.

Bullying will always exsist,the best thing to do in such situations would involve the parents and the school authority figures.

Because one can't do either without support from the other.

The parents can do their part but without backup from the school staff problems will still continue.

Same goes if the Staff try to step in,but the parents don't step in.

And I'm not saying that firearms would/should be "Pushed" on kids,I'm just saying that it should be an option for the students that would like to take part in said activities.

The shooting sports have been sponsored by schools before (though it was decades ago,but it was reality,and nothing in the way of school shootings happened then).

ERm, there are shooting ranges for people to go to, to practice their shooting, if parents want their children involved, they can take them. No need to bring them to school.

Bullying is a social issue that needs to be addressed at large. Its something people need to educate and be educated about. People who stand out or don't fit a certain mold for where they live are quite vulnerable to bullying by those who think their social status will be improved because they kicked some one else around. There are plenty of people who suffer serious bullying just for being gender variant, gay, ethnic, disabled or gifted. Bullying is a major contributing factor to kids snapping and school and doing horrible and desperate things. Handling an incident after the fact is ok for the isolated incident, however, I think awareness, education and prevention will go further.

Dismissing bullying as a genuine problem is a surefire way to make sure it always exists.

What would be wrong with a safer sport than the usual neck breaking,life ruining stuff that schools throw their full weight behind at the moment?

Bullying is a different subject than what is being talked about.


and like I said before it takes involvement from parents and staff to improve things.

Not even remotely. I am almost certain that bullying has inspired plenty of school shootings. It is totally relevant and continues to be relevant when we're talking about having weapons even more readily available at schools. If a student has a burning love for guns I'm sure zhe can bring it up to zir parents.

Setting up shooting as THE safe alternative to football is hardly an honest thing to do. If one wants to get out and be social there are plenty of other extra-curricular activities and sports. If one is dead set on some sort of weapons training, why not archery or fencing?

You weren't arguing for that at first. You implied that because there were gun free zones, that it made them targets for gun slingers.

Why don't you stop hiding behind a veneer of sportsmanship and come out and say you want to militarize children at school, Deadman?

Why you want to live in a society where you SHOULD be afraid of a stranger because everyone is packing heat is beyond me.

So please, Deadman. Stop being silly and implying that we should arm our kids in public schools. Christ and Hunter, that is insane.

He's not arguing for that. Archery isn't enough for him. He wants to turn children into soldiers. Not sure why.

How isn't it honest?

I know firsthand from shooting in family competitions where everyone was safe and as a result no one was harmed,and fun was had by all.

And I have also seen football injuries that have messed kids up for life (football is a full contact sport).

As for other sports take a look at gymnastics and cheerleading,those kids run the same risk as football players (to some extent an even higher rate of debilitating injuries)

Also as far as the "Social issue of bullying" where do most social issues start?

At the home....right?

Nope just offer a safer way to enjoy a sport and not have a group demonized for what they enjoy.

I find it amusing, that I'm saying that if kids are interested in guns and working on their marksmanship they should do so as a family matter under the supervision of their parents.

While you are stating that home is the place to counteract bullying, but the thing is bullying at school by other students isn't happening in the home... durh, its happening at school. While I agree that a parent can go a long way towards teaching their little on how to fend off bullies, they can't be there every second of the day, which is why its important to make every one aware of how wide spread and devastating the problem really is. Make sure there are policies in place to discourage the practice and help to protect the kids who are most likely to be victims. Not only will this help to further reduce the number of people randomly snapping it can also help to drop the number of suicides amongst young people.

You ask how setting up shooting guns as THE safe alternative to football is dishonest? It sets up a false dichotomy, as if those are the only choices, but they're not by a long shot as I showed previously.

I am not against practicing marksmanship. I just think that public schools are not the appropriate place for it. I don't think its a good idea to condone kids carrying guns at school.

And you are only looking at it from one side....Bullies start out as kids too right?

They have a home life as well.

Yes firearms should be allowed in schools as far as sponsored sport shooting teams.

Do you think it's better for a kid to be injured chasing after a bit of pigskin,or trying to land a flip?

No one's going to take you seriously until you learn to be reasonable. We already addressed this point as a fake choice. There are plenty of other choices.

Why must there be school sponsored shooting teams? I don't see how that could possibly help anything. You haven't come up with one decent or convincing point to help support your argument.

To stop the nonsense that "Gun free zones" produce.

As well as stop the prejudice against firearms ownership.

and as a bonus to decrease the injuries that full contact sports produce,and to allow more kids to take part in a sport at the same level (kids confined to a wheelchair for example).

What nonsense is that?

How do gun owners suffer from prejudice?

And... not even gonna touch the whole sports thing. I think if people want to play them, they should get to.

Then why not widen the selection of choice of said school sports?

The only topic you addressed is the one I specifically said wasn't really valid. Why not address the more serious topics at hand, such as:

What nonsense is that?

How do gun owners suffer from prejudice?

As far as the example of prejudice you asked for....this is a very good example wouldn't you say?

"Anybody notice that the amount of spree shooters vs the amount of semi-retarded trailer trash with guns is enough to warrant keeping those gun free zones?

Most spree shooters don't just attack a random place, and especially not on the grounds that it is a gun free zone. It's normally a place of work, a business, a school, etc. that was relevant to them. Gun free zones are a good thing. Pretty much every public place should remain gun free. Reason being, many people may have a gun, thus allowing them to stop a potential attacker, but the downside is, many people would have guns.

So you end up getting a mix of people, outlined as followed:

Normal people who don't walk around with fucking guns constantly

Crazy people who do walk around with fucking guns constantly

Stupid people with guns

People who cannot shoot with guns

Paranoid people with guns

People with mental disorders with guns.

So let's say that there are no 'no guns allowed' left. You can bring your gun wherever you want, and everybody else brings theirs. Got a boner yet, Deadman?"

I don't see how that's prejudice against gun owners. I do see a rather valid point about people who probably shouldn't be gun owners.

I'm talking about serious prejudice, like the kind that can actually affect one's livelihood, social acceptance, or well being. I've never heard of some one in the U.S. loosing their job (especially in MO), being ejected/ not accepted into a national organization or get the shit beat out of them simply for owning firearms. One internet post that doesn't even really address the group as a whole, hardly counts as oppression.

And there is yet another example,you don't see it because you either choose not to see it (because it does prove my point) or because you are trying to troll an angry response out of me (Which I won't let happen)