Mars wrote:
Wow!  I was thinking the exact opposite.  I'm at the university level and I can honestly say that I can't pinpoint one prof that I can say would be able to do it.  About 90% of the profs I know would be a definite no and 10% maybe.

I honestly would expect that stat with little surprise....more proof that major universities skew 90% liberal and mostly out of touch with the "common" man...

There is a galaxy of difference between a US inner city school and a ivy league (or other) university. I rag on public school teachers here a lot (actually, the teacher's union) but I wouldn't do their job.  I'd rather be a skyscraper window washer.

Mike b.

Badmike wrote:I'll take my chances carrying rather than not carrying.

Not surprising coming from part of the ATM  Also gives new meaning to the DM is always right.

Badmike wrote:
All that video proves is that cop should have never been issued a gun. Thank goodness no innocents were at risk at the time who could have gotten injured or killed.  I've never been faced with that situation and hope I never will, so I don't know what I'd do, but morally I know I have zero problem with emptying my gun if given the chance under those circumstances.

Mike B.

It's a clear cut example of someone who wasn't prepared to shoot another human being, even in the face of being shot himself. Most people are going to be at least somewhat hesitant in pulling the trigger and ending someone elses life. That was the point of me posting the video.

Badmike wrote:
I honestly would expect that stat with little surprise....more proof that major universities skew 90% liberal and mostly out of touch with the "common" man...
Mike b.

I am not sure what any person's willingness to take another human beings life has to do with that person's political leanings, left or right.  There are just as many hard core bible thumpers on the right who have the 10 commandments memorized including the "Thou shalt not kill" one as there are peacenicks and hippies on the left.

As noted above, most people will not kill another human being if given the opportunity and in a lot of circumstances even when there isn't an opportunity to avoid it, a lot of people will still freeze completely or hesitate far too long making it too late for it to make a difference.

bclarkie wrote:
It's a clear cut example of someone who wasn't prepared to shoot another human being, even in the face of being shot himself. Most people are going to be at least somewhat hesitant in pulling the trigger and ending someone elses life. That was the point of me posting the video.

I agree totally, but the man should never have been issued a gun.  He either had bad training or the trainers didn't do their job by recognizing someone who wasn't prepared to do what police officers sometimes have to do.  It's akin to a doctor freezing up in emergency surgery or a fireman standing and staring at a building burning down instead of spraying the hose. If they survive the experience they need to seek other employment.

Then again I've seen stories of store owners being robbed at gunpoint who pretty calmly returned fire and finished off the scumbag without any training whatsoever. I just pray that if I'm ever faced with such a situation I can do what needs to be done.

Mike B.

JasonZavoda wrote:
Have you ever been to an American school? I live in Wilmington Delaware and tutor math. Armed teachers would be a godsend. And yes, I have a kevlar vest which I wear from time to time. Very handy indeed. Nothing like having some guy pop all his knuckles going for a kidney punch.

Security works, they can keep a bad situation from getting worse. The idiotic philosophy that if you do nothing a bad situation will go away is like pulling a blanket over your head so that the monsters won't get you. The best security is what is at hand. You can't keep a swat team at school so give the teachers some basic training.

Actually I grew up in one of the worst neighbourhoods in Toronto and I study criminology.  I hope this counts as some sort of a qualification.  The simple problem is this:  the US crime rate has been dropping since the early 1970's, but unfortunately the fear of crime has risen disproportionately in the last twenty years and is not stopping.  Despite the declining crime rate (including homicides), one of the fastest growing industries in the US is private security and control.  It is a business which profits from fear and insecurity, and does so by perpetuating both.

It is not sticking one's head in the sand, but merely looking at the evidence supplied by countries with stricter gun control.  

As I wrote before, despite several school shootings in Canada there has never been a discussion of arming teachers.  In fact, after Columbine I remember there was a discussion of training teachers and staff to spot and help disaffected or troubled youth in their early years ( a technique which is being used in the US and has stopped several school attacks already).  It seems listening and talking to their students is effective for preventing an attack because, as shown in study after study, deterrence has a limited, short -term effect for only minor crimes. (Strangely, those charged with DUI's are the most affected by deterrence).  

JasonZavoda wrote:It would be a shame for innocent bystanders to get killed, but it is the teachers who are there, not the police. The teachers who are going to be the first responders. Otherwise by the time the police get to these places the killing has already started.

The kids can take a little uniformity, a little regulation and structure. And they do need a message, teachers are there to protect them and will use deadly force to do it.

Basic training would do little for most people.  Shooting a gun is one matter, using it effectively during an emergency is another.  Besides what is more important: getting the children to safety away or shooting back?

What if the nutjob is better armed, a better shot, and better prepared?  What then?  Arm the kid working at McD's ( cause a lot of little kids were massacred there)?  Arm the bus drivers, the cable repair men. Where do you stop?

Agreed: The police are rarely ever there when a crime is being committed.  The police patrol neighbourhoods looking for activity, but as the very famous Kansas City experiment demonstrated, response time, patrol strength, and visibility is meaningless to stop or prevent crime.  Police patrols are analogous to having fire truck patrols, they do very little to alter the overall crime rate (or fire rate, if you will).  People call the police after something has happened, and very rarely do they stumble upon a crime.  That said, people are notoriously awful at preventing or stopping crimes, and quite often make matters worse, such as mass panic or misidentifying innocent bystanders as criminals.

School is one of the few stable institutions in the community...it is a refuge for many.  It is a place of learning, and the message taught by arming teachers and treating all children as potential murderers is just wrong.  

JasonZavoda wrote:
And I have my carry permit, so off school grounds, at the mall, the bowling alley, the park, the library, I wouldn't hesitate to put some nutjob down. I don't fire wild, but if someone innocent was hurt, I'd take what justice decreed. I didn't hand over my civic responsibility to the police. I didn't hand it over to the government. Being free means being responsible for upholding that freedom and protecting society, not waiting for society to come and protect you, and no damn way waiting for society to come and protect children. If I saw someone hurting a child, or even pointing a gun at a child, they'd have to put a few in me first, enough to put me down and keep me there.

I understand and agree with your your statements--it is our job to help society function safely and our duty to prevent harm to another, but most people freeze, run, or ignore situations entirely.  

However, what I was trying to point out was this:  if a disaffected nutjob wants to do something, hard targeting any location simply shifts the target for the nutjob.  This inherent failure to understand criminal adaptation  has been shown time and time again--from the post 9/11 attack in London--the "characteristics" of the terrorists and the type of target selected--the Tylenol poisonings, to the drug courier criminal profile, etc.  The same would and does happen with the youth who wants to kill ( the Washington snipers are a good example).   Arming teachers would accomplish little and would send the wrong message:  fear, not security.

Okay I'm all done

Edit:  Man, I sound way over the top and snarky as hell, no harm meant.  Just tell me to shud'it and I will

Hmmm, bacon cheeseburgers....omelette bacon cheese burgers...tell us more...

Badmike wrote:I actually don't think it's going very far out on a limb to say right=pro-gun and left=anti-gun.  Sometimes a stereotype is a stereotype for a reason.  If the professors at Mars' university are all right wing wackos it's unlike any Uni I've ever attended in my life...

Mike B.

Except being "pro-gun" does not make you anymore able to overcome the moral consequenses of killing another human being, whether you do it with a gun or some other means.  Your belief that one has the right to carry a gun is not the same thing as being able to take someone elses life, so I again I reiterate that one's political leanigns factors in very little as to whehter he/she will be able to pull the trigger and kill someone.

bclarkie wrote:
I am not sure what any person's willingness to take another human beings life has to do with that person's political leanings, left or right.  There are just as many hard core bible thumpers on the right who have the 10 commandments memorized including the "Thou shalt not kill" one as there are peacenicks and hippies on the left.

As noted above, most people will not kill another human being if given the opportunity and in a lot of circumstances even when there isn't an opportunity to avoid it, a lot of people will still freeze completely or hesitate far too long making it too late for it to make a difference.

In your own experience.

In my own experience I have met very few people who would have trouble pulling the trigger or using a knife, club, or bare-hands to protect someone or themselves. I've also known lotsa people who have had to do so, men and women. I taught a self defense class for women years ago and there are three simple self-defense moves that anyone can learn, running away, scratching or gouging eyes and crushing a throat. I'd pick up a few pigs heads from a butchers and have them practice. Some were a bit squeamish at first, but a lot of these women had been assaulted at some time in the past, and they went to it with gusto.

The Russians learned in WWII that women were thee most ruthless fighters.

Motivation is the key. I just know a lot of self-motivated people.

jasonw1239 wrote:Sounds like the people deciding on this stuff is watching too much TV.  

I remember seeing some NRA dude on CNN back in the spring saying something along the lines of (and I am paraphrasing)...

The way to solve the gun violence problem is for more people to have guns.

If solutions like that worked in the real world then why not do things like give every country nuclear weapons? Maybe because some of them are not considered responsible enough to own them?....

Jason;

I actually agree with this statement (although it sounds like a cherry-picked quote) with the caveat of adding "responsible" before "people".

A better analogy would be that Iran, North Korea and Russia have nuclear weapons, and the US, Canada and the UK don't but COULD decide to have them.  I think the choice is obvious.  

In the real world the "irresponsible" people ALREADY have the guns.  People like you and I being armed is only evening the odds.

Mike B.