National Rifle Association Calls For Armed Guards In U S Schools

[NeverSure]

Nope, but I am quoting federal law and I have tried and won cases in federal courts in Nev, Penn, NY, Fla, Miss, and Tenn. I also know how to read and interpret Federal statutes in conjunction with state statutes after spending 3 years clerking for a State Supreme Court Justice. I am not telling you what to do. I just merely pointed out that you may be admitting to violation of federal law and encouraging others to violate federal law. Seems like you would wan to spend time it takes to read and draft a few post to review such laws if you are counseling people on these rights.

The case cited above was federal prosecution and conviction under 18 U.S.C. 922(q) for an individual in a state carrying a firearm on or within 1000 feet of school property. I guess the Federal Courts think they do have such powers.

Read my post above, and then take some remedial reading courses. You are misquoting federal law. As I said, when lawyers go to court, 50% of them lose which tells you how intelligent they are, or how much stock I should put in their opinions.

In the case you are quoting, it says that if a person has a valid concealed handgun license, BATF has agreed he may carry in a school if the state allows it.

In your case, the person lacked the state license.

Haha, you know. You are absolutely correct. Sorry for wasting your time on this one. I should have read the full statutory exceptions . . . I can admit when I am wrong . . .

Well, you just went up a mile in my opinion of you. An internet forum first!!!

I'd like to buy you a beer sometime.

[Chicog]

If I call your scooter a pickup, it doesn't make it one. If I'm the most ignorant bastard on the planet I might write for the press and call your scooter a pickup. If all the reporters parrot each other, then your scooter really becomes a pickup.

I'm generalising because no concrete proposals have been made yet. So I'd save your lectures for when they do, that's if you find them unreasonable.

[NeverSure]

If I call your scooter a pickup, it doesn't make it one. If I'm the most ignorant bastard on the planet I might write for the press and call your scooter a pickup. If all the reporters parrot each other, then your scooter really becomes a pickup.

I'm generalising because no concrete proposals have been made yet. So I'd save your lectures for when they do, that's if you find them unreasonable.

Calling for an assault rifle ban when there already is one isn't generalizing. Words have meaning.

[NeverSure]

I'll take you guys on all day long. You have no clue about the tiny percentages of injuries caused by guns vs cars, no clue about how many times each year someone defends himself or others without firing a shot, no clue what an assault rifle is, no clue what the actual laws are, but have lots of prejudices based on irrational fear and not based on facts.

As I've said in previous posts, if death and injury were truly the concern, we would focus on home fires and auto accidents - particularly auto accidents including drunk driving. But death and injury isn't truly the concern. Irrational fear is the motivation and no quoting of statistics can change that.

I earlier quoted an article by someone who made the analogy about fear of flying. Even though flying is safer than the drive to the airport, if someone is afraid of flying no amount of logic will change that. That person will still live in terror the entire duration of the flight.

But when an airliner does go down, it's international news even though more people were killed worldwide that same day by auto accidents, but never mentioned. Far fewer were killed by guns but those incidents will also make headlines. Even on a day when there is a school shooting, far more people die that day by auto accident but that's not mentioned.

Irrational fear of flying and irrational fear of guns fuels the emotions. It's not about the real statistics or the real danger. It's about emotions and failure to face the truth.

[Chicog]

If I call your scooter a pickup, it doesn't make it one. If I'm the most ignorant bastard on the planet I might write for the press and call your scooter a pickup. If all the reporters parrot each other, then your scooter really becomes a pickup.

I'm generalising because no concrete proposals have been made yet. So I'd save your lectures for when they do, that's if you find them unreasonable.

Calling for an assault rifle ban when there already is one isn't generalizing. Words have meaning.

The point I made was that even some conservatives think there is room for change; how far that goes will depend on the solutions offered by the panel.

I'll take you guys on all day long.

If you keep doing it by comparing car and aircraft accidents with deaths caused by firearms, I'm afraid it falls on rather deaf ears.

There is no comparison between the two except statistically. Cars and Aircraft are modes of transport, and shit happens.

Guns are weapons and are designed to kill, and thanks to their widespread availability in the US, they are doing a great job.

[simple1]

I'll take you guys on all day long. You have no clue about the tiny percentages of injuries caused by guns vs cars, no clue about how many times each year someone defends himself or others without firing a shot, no clue what an assault rifle is, no clue what the actual laws are, but have lots of prejudices based on irrational fear and not based on facts.

As I've said in previous posts, if death and injury were truly the concern, we would focus on home fires and auto accidents - particularly auto accidents including drunk driving. But death and injury isn't truly the concern. Irrational fear is the motivation and no quoting of statistics can change that.

I earlier quoted an article by someone who made the analogy about fear of flying. Even though flying is safer than the drive to the airport, if someone is afraid of flying no amount of logic will change that. That person will still live in terror the entire duration of the flight.

But when an airliner does go down, it's international news even though more people were killed worldwide that same day by auto accidents, but never mentioned. Far fewer were killed by guns but those incidents will also make headlines. Even on a day when there is a school shooting, far more people die that day by auto accident but that's not mentioned.

Irrational fear of flying and irrational fear of guns fuels the emotions. It's not about the real statistics or the real danger. It's about emotions and failure to face the truth.

Yes the truth is some people are deliberately carrying out mass murder with high powered weapons & legislators are endeavouring to identity a means to reduce the likelihood of these events reoccurring. As I understand each state & territory in the US implement the intent of federal gun control laws according to their constituency, thereby no uniformity. Shocking examples of some States under reporting people who have mental illness, some States that do not have appropriate gun licensing policy in place.

As a non US citizen it is disturbing that when Obamacare was being debated in Congress, a large number of congressmen supporting Obamacare were receiving death threats and upon threat assessment by law enforcement agencies were provided with body armour and armed bodyguards. It is very rare for this level of threat in other western democracies. Even in this forum members saying they would take up arms if they disagreed with the policy of the elected government that would impact their perceived personal "rights". From the outside it currently looks that civil debate & policy development in the US is under threat from US citizens extremism.

Below I have provided a link that reviews gun control and compares the level of violence in different developed countries to the USA. A quote that in my opinion is relevant "It's not clear that guns cause violence, but it's absolutely clear that they change the outcome,"

http://www.huffingto..._n_2331892.html

EDIT: In the past the US government has provided wonderful examples of enlightened policy e.g. Marshall Plan and NATO. Let's hope the US has the strength to defend it's own citizens from domestic extremism.

Edited January 9, 2013 by simple1

[NeverSure]

If you keep doing it by comparing car and aircraft accidents with deaths caused by firearms, I'm afraid it falls on rather deaf ears.

There is no comparison between the two except statistically. Cars and Aircraft are modes of transport, and shit happens.

Guns are weapons and are designed to kill, and thanks to their widespread availability in the US, they are doing a great job.

You'll never get it. The guns I own are designed to defend. Millions of US citizens use a gun to defend without firing a shot. About 2 million US citizens use a gun for defense every year. Shit happens. How many more would be harmed by criminals if they couldn't defend themselves? You have no statistics as to how much higher the gun crime would be in the US if only criminals had guns. You'd like to see the law abiding disarmed but won't acknowledge that criminals don't obey laws. Australia banned guns and there is no proof it altered the crime rate.

Your beliefs are based on fear and not facts. You can't compare the less violent nature of the British with the US. It's a cultural difference and the results won't hold up in different cultures. You can't predict an outcome in the US based on Britain or Canada. They are two different peoples.

If you want to live unarmed in the US, up to you. I guarantee you the criminals won't.

[chuckd]

From today's news:

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Teachers In Ohio, Texas Flock To Free Gun Training Classes

By KIM PALMER and JIM FORSYTH, Reuters

The Hartford Courant

5:27 p.m. EST, January 8, 2013

School teachers in Texas and Ohio are flocking to free firearms classes in the wake of the Connecticut elementary school massacre, some vowing to protect their students with guns even at the risk of losing their jobs.

In Ohio, more than 900 teachers, administrators and school employees asked to take part in the Buckeye Firearms Association's newly created, three-day gun training program, the association said.

In Texas, an $85 Concealed Handgun License (CHL) course offered at no cost to teachers filled 400 spots immediately, forcing the school to offer another class, one instructor said.

"Any teacher who is licensed and chooses to be armed should be able to be armed," said Gerald Valentino, co-founder of the Buckeye Firearms Association. "It should be every teacher's choice."

http://www.courant.c...0,4582657.story

[DocN]

If you keep doing it by comparing car and aircraft accidents with deaths caused by firearms, I'm afraid it falls on rather deaf ears.

There is no comparison between the two except statistically. Cars and Aircraft are modes of transport, and shit happens.

Guns are weapons and are designed to kill, and thanks to their widespread availability in the US, they are doing a great job.

You'll never get it. The guns I own are designed to defend. Millions of US citizens use a gun to defend without firing a shot. About 2 million US citizens use a gun for defense every year. Shit happens. How many more would be harmed by criminals if they couldn't defend themselves? You have no statistics as to how much higher the gun crime would be in the US if only criminals had guns. You'd like to see the law abiding disarmed but won't acknowledge that criminals don't obey laws. Australia banned guns and there is no proof it altered the crime rate.

Your beliefs are based on fear and not facts. You can't compare the less violent nature of the British with the US. It's a cultural difference and the results won't hold up in different cultures. You can't predict an outcome in the US based on Britain or Canada. They are two different peoples.

If you want to live unarmed in the US, up to you. I guarantee you the criminals won't.

Oh...so you have special guns? Your guns are designed to defend!

Sorry: guns are designed to shoot and usually not into the air but at a target.

They are designed to be (at least) a demonstration of otherwise absent power!

They are designed to aim, shoot and hit i.e. injure and kill.

Yours and anybody elses!

According to your logic, just give anyone a car to drive or a plane to fly, no matter if they are able to do so!

More guns- less shootings! (and mind you: sure less gun ACCIDENTS!)

More cars- less accidents!

More planes- less crashes!

[Chicog]

Australia banned guns and there is no proof it altered the crime rate.

Crime rate? Maybe not. Deaths by Firearms? Most certainly, which was the idea.

Though gun-related deaths did not suddenly end in Australia, gun-related homicides dropped 59 percent between 1995 and 2006, with no corresponding increase in non-firearm-related homicides. Suicides by gun plummeted by 65 percent, and robberies at gunpoint also dropped significantly. Many said there was a close correlation between the sharp declines and the buyback program.

A paper for the American Law and Economics Review by Andrew Leigh of the Australian National University and Christine Neill of the Wilfrid Laurier University reports that the buyback led to a drop in the firearm suicide rates of almost 80 percent, "with no significant effect on non-firearm death rates. The effect on firearm homicides is of similar magnitude but is less precise.”

Perhaps the most convincing statistic for many, though, is that in the decade before the Port Arthur massacre, there were 11 mass shootings in the country. Since the new law, there hasn’t been one shooting spree.

Edited January 9, 2013 by Chicog

[Chicog]

Oh, and if I might be more specific so as not to raise the ire of those who know what "assault weapons" are, here is a reasonable definition:

Australians had overwhelmingly had enough of anyone with a grudge gaining easy, mostly legal access to weapons designed expressly to kill a lot of people in a very short time.

[NeverSure]

Oh, and if I might be more specific so as not to raise the ire of those who know what "assault weapons" are, here is a reasonable definition:

Australians had overwhelmingly had enough of anyone with a grudge gaining easy, mostly legal access to weapons designed expressly to kill a lot of people in a very short time.

How many "assault weapons" do you own? The last one that I saw for sale was $20,000, was the standard issue military M16 which most troops carry, and you'd have to go through a lot of grief to get a federal $500 per year license to own it.

It can burn through $500 worth of (1,000 rounds of) simple small arms 5.56 NATO ammunition in 90 seconds. I'd show you a box of 1000 if the forum allowed it. it's just 7 inches x 7 inches x 12 inches. I'm sure google images will oblige.

I guess if you tell a lie often enough, people believe it. The press loves to call anything that's painted black an "assault" rifle. No self respecting military unit would conduct an assault with the rifles that the great majority of civilians own.

[NeverSure]

Oh, and if I might be more specific so as not to raise the ire of those who know what "assault weapons" are, here is a reasonable definition:

Australians had overwhelmingly had enough of anyone with a grudge gaining easy, mostly legal access to weapons designed expressly to kill a lot of people in a very short time.

One more thing. I hope I never have to use a gun to defend myself. I really do. But if it ever happens, I want to have the best tool I can for the job. Don't you want the best tool you can have for a job? I understand why someone wants firepower.

In the case of the woman in this thread who defended herself and her two children against a forcible entry by a career criminal, the criminal forgot one thing.

You don't bring a crowbar to a gun fight.

[simple1]

Australia banned guns and there is no proof it altered the crime rate.

Crime rate? Maybe not. Deaths by Firearms? Most certainly, which was the idea.

Though gun-related deaths did not suddenly end in Australia, gun-related homicides dropped 59 percent between 1995 and 2006, with no corresponding increase in non-firearm-related homicides. Suicides by gun plummeted by 65 percent, and robberies at gunpoint also dropped significantly. Many said there was a close correlation between the sharp declines and the buyback program.

A paper for the American Law and Economics Review by Andrew Leigh of the Australian National University and Christine Neill of the Wilfrid Laurier University reports that the buyback led to a drop in the firearm suicide rates of almost 80 percent, "with no significant effect on non-firearm death rates. The effect on firearm homicides is of similar magnitude but is less precise.”

Perhaps the most convincing statistic for many, though, is that in the decade before the Port Arthur massacre, there were 11 mass shootings in the country. Since the new law, there hasn’t been one shooting spree.

I think you're full of shit.

"It is a common fantasy that gun bans make society safer. In 2002 -- five years after enacting its gun ban -- the Australian Bureau of Criminology acknowledged there is no correlation between gun control and the use of firearms in violent crime. In fact, the percent of murders committed with a firearm was the highest it had ever been in 2006 (16.3 percent), says the D.C. Examiner."

Even Australia's Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research acknowledges that the gun ban had no significant impact on the amount of gun-involved crime:

• In 2006, assault rose 49.2 percent and robbery 6.2 percent.
  
• Sexual assault -- Australia's equivalent term for rape -- increased 29.9 percent.
  
• Overall, Australia's violent crime rate rose 42.2 percent.
  

Moreover, Australia and the United States -- where no gun-ban exists -- both experienced similar decreases in murder rates.

More

Yes general level of violence has increased nationally by about 11%, the figures and department you quoted is only relevant to one state, NSW. Murder rate in Australia is 1.1 per 100k of population, from memory US is 4.8 per 100k population. In Australia nationally firearm use has declined by more than half since 1989-90 as a proportion of homicide methods in Australia, refer http://www.aic.gov.a...ide/weapon.html

[inapeartree]

If Alex Jones is a true representation of your typical American gun owner then I'm extremely worried!

[NeverSure]

-snip- In Australia nationally firearm use has declined by more than half since 1989-90 as a proportion of homicide methods in Australia, refer http://www.aic.gov.a...ide/weapon.html

Keep whining. I like it.

Read the article again. Those crime rates have declined by the same rate in the same time in the US which didn't ban guns.

Since both countries have had the same crime declines while US gun sales soared, are you trying to tell me there's proof how the gun ban worked somehow? (shakes his head.)

In the US, violent gun crimes are only 1/2 the number per capita that they were 20 years ago despite the clear fact that sales of guns and ammo have soared.

Where do I put that, when trying to read your "logic?"

Just because your emotions tell you it should be so, it doesn't make it so.

[chuckd]

If Alex Jones is a true representation of your typical American gun owner then I'm extremely worried!

One US idiot talking to one UK idiot. Your point is????

Edited January 10, 2013 by Scott

[simple1]

-snip- In Australia nationally firearm use has declined by more than half since 1989-90 as a proportion of homicide methods in Australia, refer http://www.aic.gov.a...ide/weapon.html

Keep whining. I like it.

Read the article again. Those crime rates have declined by the same rate in the same time in the US which didn't ban guns.

Since both countries have had the same crime declines while US gun sales soared, are you trying to tell me there's proof how the gun ban worked somehow? (shakes his head.)

In the US, violent gun crimes are only 1/2 the number per capita that they were 20 years ago despite the clear fact that sales of guns and ammo have soared.

Where do I put that, when trying to read your "logic?"

Just because your emotions tell you it should be so, it doesn't make it so.

Not whining, quoting stats from a national Australian government reporting agency that specifically mentions that homicide by gun in Australia has reduced by half, whereas you quoted percent of murders committed with a firearm was the highest it had ever been in 2006.

I prefer to run with official Australian government national statistics, rather than stats that spiked during an episode of gang warfare

[inapeartree]

If Alex Jones is a true representation of your typical American gun owner then I'm extremely worried!

One US idiot talking to one UK idiot. Your point is????

Sure, they are both idiots but only one seems to have mental issues!

Edited January 10, 2013 by Scott

[NeverSure]

-snip-

I prefer to run with official Australian government national statistics, rather than stats that spiked during an episode of gang warfare

You don't have gang warfare. You have a gun ban, remember?

[NeverSure]

Sure, they are both idiots but only one seems to have mental issues!

Yep, couldn't agree more. I'm beginning to think that all Brits have mental issues. </joking>

[simple1]

-snip-

I prefer to run with official Australian government national statistics, rather than stats that spiked during an episode of gang warfare

You don't have gang warfare. You have a gun ban, remember?

No their is not a total gun ban in Australia and as you well know criminal organisations exempt themselves from any legislation. However note that high capacity magazines are banned. Cannot see why US is unable to consider similar legislation. For detail on Australian gun ownership laws go to URL below.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Australia#Firearms_categories

[NeverSure]

No their is not a total gun ban in Australia and as you well know criminal organisations exempt themselves from any legislation. However note that high capacity magazines are banned. Cannot see why US is unable to consider similar legislation. For detail on Australian gun ownership laws go to URL below.

http://en.wikipedia....arms_categories

"Cannot see why US is unable to consider similar legislation."

Perhaps because the gun crime rate in the US has dropped by 1/2 per 100,000 capita in the past 20 years despite soaring gun sales.

Perhaps because the article I linked and others I could link show that Australia rates have increased, and 8 years after the gun ban they had the highest incidents of gun crime in history?

Perhaps because you tell me that increase came from gangs. I don't want to be defenseless against armed and increasingly violent gangs. I have guns and I'm not causing the crimes.

I believe that what the numbers are showing is that if people can defend themselves, gun crimes decrease. It's surely happened in the US. If they can't, they increase which is what's happening in Australia.

[NeverSure]

I'm outta here. It's been fun but I've said what I believe.

[Chicog]

Australia banned guns and there is no proof it altered the crime rate.

Crime rate? Maybe not. Deaths by Firearms? Most certainly, which was the idea.

Though gun-related deaths did not suddenly end in Australia, gun-related homicides dropped 59 percent between 1995 and 2006, with no corresponding increase in non-firearm-related homicides. Suicides by gun plummeted by 65 percent, and robberies at gunpoint also dropped significantly. Many said there was a close correlation between the sharp declines and the buyback program.

A paper for the American Law and Economics Review by Andrew Leigh of the Australian National University and Christine Neill of the Wilfrid Laurier University reports that the buyback led to a drop in the firearm suicide rates of almost 80 percent, "with no significant effect on non-firearm death rates. The effect on firearm homicides is of similar magnitude but is less precise.”

Perhaps the most convincing statistic for many, though, is that in the decade before the Port Arthur massacre, there were 11 mass shootings in the country. Since the new law, there hasn’t been one shooting spree.

I think you're full of shit.

Really worthy response. Helps illustrate your position very well indeed.

[Sing_Sling]

"Liberals" and "politicians" are pushing for gun control. Not the "people"...at least those in the US.

I don't know about the German "people"

So, you're saying that 'liberals' are not people . . . despite 'liberals' being in the majority int he US?

What an odd thing to claim

Where did you hear that liberals were in the majority in the US?

What an odd thing to claim.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Edit in to add links:

http://www.huffingto...l_n_625658.html

http://www.theatlant...servative/1162/

I guess you'd have to look at the last few elections to come to that conclusion . . . it's obvious . . . to most

[chuckd]

"Liberals" and "politicians" are pushing for gun control. Not the "people"...at least those in the US.

I don't know about the German "people"

So, you're saying that 'liberals' are not people . . . despite 'liberals' being in the majority int he US?

What an odd thing to claim

Where did you hear that liberals were in the majority in the US?

What an odd thing to claim.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Edit in to add links:

http://www.huffingto...l_n_625658.html

http://www.theatlant...servative/1162/

I guess you'd have to look at the last few elections to come to that conclusion . . . it's obvious . . . to most

What an interesting way to defend an indefensible comment.

[chuckd]

If Alex Jones is a true representation of your typical American gun owner then I'm extremely worried!

One US idiot talking to one UK idiot. Your point is????

Sure, they are both idiots but only one seems to have mental issues!

It would seem Piers gets the protection of the First Amendment so he can stay and try to destroy the Second Amendment. Freedom of the press and all that.

Here's a little snip from the next night's Piers Morgan show where they discuss action that should be taken against Alex Jones. Nothing hypocritical on Pier's show, is there.

The interesting part is at 1:00 of the YouTube.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_N1niKkLNaw&feature=youtube_gdata

Edited January 10, 2013 by chuckd

[Pakboong]

If Alex Jones is a true representation of your typical American gun owner then I'm extremely worried!

Alex was on the show for one reason. The station his show is on is an affiliate of time warner. He is not an independent broadcaster. Alex is as much a part of the same system as Piers Morgan. When you think in terms of association, Alex is to Warner as Glenn Beck is to Fox. He fulfills a purpose, and attracts a fringe audience, an audience that pays subscription fees to GCN (via prisonplanet.tv). So Alex was on the show because he is a 'TV', presenter. He's like a specialist reporter, a TV personality and an agent provocateur all rolled into one.

[Scott]

An oversized graph has been deleted as it messes up the page formatting.

Please stay on the topic as the thread is straying very far from the OP.