Arm the teachers!

Since the thread has in parts deviated to the habits of school masters from a gone-bye age, the exchanges have brought back memories of some of mine employing the technique of lifting not the ear of the pupil but the sideburn. This technique was beautifully parodied by Monty Python's Life Of Brian where the centurion (Cleese) forced Brian to self-correct his own clumsy Latin wall-slogan purporting to say 'Romans Go Home'. Hugely funny but also pertinent for those of us who had been educated where such techniques were used.  

Eloise posted:
MDS posted:

That's not at all how the proposal has been presented by the UK media, which seems to have boiled it down to an inflammatory sound-bite. Thank you for explaining it, Florestan.  

The U.K. media is offering that clarity now... which appears to have come since the initial reports of what Trump said.

Despite the clarity, I’m still not sure if it’s a real solution to the problem... surely it would just mean any teacher (well any adult) in a school becomes the primary target.  My issue over escalation still applies.

Neither am I, Eloise,  but I do get irritated at the media sometimes. Too often it seems to think about what its audience wants to hear and tailors its headlines to massage that prejudice. I expect more of the media. I want to understand more about the issue from more than one perspective so that I can make up my own mind.  

Richard Dane posted:
Derek Wright posted:

We had a teacher with "anger management" issues, 99.9% of the time he was a good teacher but if a pupil strayed he would be doing a "chinese burn", or throwing the blackboard cleaner (a block of wood with chalk dust impregnated felt attached to it - left a mark on the target to indicate the accuracy of the aim) or attempting to strangle the pupil.

We had a maths teacher who was a crack shot with chalk, but every now and then he would up the ante by deploying the wooden blackboard cleaner. It hurt like hell, and heaven help you if you blubbed.  

Oh, and a headmaster whose favourite ploy was the death grip, where he'd go to shake your hand and once he had your hand in his, he would gradually crush it so you would end up writhing around on your knees begging for mercy.

Happy days.

Was called 'shake hands' by any chance?

The old school I attended was proper old school, with many of the older members of staff having past history with the British Army. 

They had some very interesting solutions to troublesome pupils.

One time I was made to go outside and stand facing the classroom on a ground floor window with my nose pressing against.  It was very cold mid winter time and my nose stuck.   Was difficult explaining to my mum why I was missing some skin when I got home.

Hungryhalibut posted:

What a wonderful idea. It will really make things better. Why hasn’t someone thought of it earlier?

This is a perfect example of how f@cked up our culture has evolved. What's next? If teachers have guns shouldn't the students also have guns?

I'm a gun owner and believe in the second amendment but clearly we need to get serious about background checks and expand the courts' ability to temporarily force individuals to surrender their weapons. (Similar to personal protection orders but having the protected party == society.)

As a joke it's a funny idea, but I've heard people say this seriously. The reality is that teachers in the US have enough problems. They are already tasked with raising our children and blamed when they do it any less well than the parents who don't involve themselves. Let's not add the burden of life and death to what is already a completely underappreciated job. The good teachers care about children and wouldn't be able to live with themselves if they had to take the life of even one that was a shooter, let alone make a mistake and kill a kid that wasn't involved. The bad ones I wouldn't want to arm at all, they're already sleeping with our kids. What would our litigious society do every single time a faculty member so much as unholstered a weapon in front of our children? Our policemen, another completely underappreciated group, can go through years of investigation, public humiliation and second guessing over what in the moment is a split second reaction.

Weapons in the US are ubiquitous. It's easy as pie for kids to get their hands on weapons even when parents are careful, so an unstable kid can do a world of harm, in or out of school.

We'll end up with school marshals and when the bullets start flying, hopefully they'll be in the right place at the right time and not high on the weed they sell our kids during the 99.9999% downtime that is their jobs.

Hungryhalibut posted:

What a wonderful idea. It will really make things better. Why hasn’t someone thought of it earlier?

What a wonderful idea to start such a topic laced with sarcasm and know it all attitude while on the other side of the ocean families of school students and teachers are grieving for their loss and the nation is trying to figure out the best and quickest way to prevent such attacks from occurring again.

 
Haim Ronen posted:
Hungryhalibut posted:

What a wonderful idea. It will really make things better. Why hasn’t someone thought of it earlier?

What a wonderful idea to start such a topic laced with sarcasm and know it all attitude while on the other side of the ocean families of school students and teachers are grieving for their loss and the nation is trying to figure out the best and quickest way to prevent such attacks from occurring again.

 

I'd like to think you're right about the nation trying to figure something out. I fear that it actually just a lot of individual people trying to figure out how to use this to advance their personal agenda/beliefs/interest/fears.

Haim Ronen posted:
Hungryhalibut posted:

What a wonderful idea. It will really make things better. Why hasn’t someone thought of it earlier?

What a wonderful idea to start such a topic laced with sarcasm and know it all attitude while on the other side of the ocean families of school students and teachers are grieving for their loss and the nation is trying to figure out the best and quickest way to prevent such attacks from occurring again.

 

I have to agree here in that any debate is better than no debate and as part of a wider discussion the more radical views are of course going to come out. The slightly sneering nature of the opening post is unhelpful and adds nothing to the discussion.  Why just pick one view that will of course 99% never come to be and to make fun of it when there are much more positive things happening like the student demo?

It seems that the armed police officer on duty outside the school stayed outside and did not confront the gunman, and following suspension has now resigned. So the teachers can do the job that the police are too scared or inept to do. Like others I find the actions of the students hugely positive but when those in charge have their heads up the arse of the NRA, what hope is there?

Since the repeated incidents being addressed here are a feature of current American society, I'll address this response from the orientation of that society.

It is clear that the number of guns, and their availability to the general populace has increased since the Second World War.  Along with this increasing availability is a commensurate increase in firearms related deaths.  In latter years, this increase has been super-proportional to the increase in the availability of firearms.  This must be attributed to social change.

It is also a given that, a state of constant social change is inevitable, in any non-totalitarian society.

The question remains as, in respect of the question of the legal position of firearms legislation and the societal attitude to guns, what direction future social change in American society will take.


The following is personal opinion and not intended as a social comment on American society.


I see five possibilities (OK one is so remote a possibility as to be practically inconceivable!)

1  Do nothing or make insignificant intervention in the formulation of law and the current student reaction fails (as have previous 'ground level' movements that have attempted social reform).  The current trend will continue as there is no driver for change in another direction: the trend of an increasing rate of firearms related deaths will continue.

2  Social pressure arising from the increasing rate of firearms related deaths eventually leads to partial legal restriction of firearms.  After a short period when the rate of rate of firearms related deaths shows a small but significant reduction, this initiative will subsequently largely fail (due to it's incomplete nature) giving rise to a counter movement based on the "guns prevent gun violence" philosophy.  The previous situation will then be restored, hence the increasing rate of firearms related deaths will also be restored once the driver for change is removed.

3  Social pressure arising from the increasing rate of firearms related deaths eventually leads to severe legal restriction of firearms, including repeal of the Second Amendment.  After a dramatic backlash against the police trying to enforce the law and a few ghettos of gun fanatics being stormed by special forces, the situation eventually calms down, leaving guns only in the hands of MLE and career criminals.  Once the criminals know that law abiding citizens aren't armed and they don't need to shoot first, actual shootings will largely be confined to conflict between these two groups and within the latter group.  After a major upheaval, this will slowly stabilise American society,

4  Social pressure arising from the increasing rate of firearms related deaths and one of the 'ground level' social movements takes hold and progressively leads to the social vilification of gun ownership.  This will finally stabilise American society, leaving guns only in the hands of MLE and career criminals.  Once the criminals know that law abiding citizens aren't armed and they don't need to shoot first, actual shootings will largely be confined to conflict between these two groups and within the latter group.

5  American society adopts an idealised Eastern style Society Centric approach, where the each individual person considers the needs of the greater society above their own needs.  The problem simply disappears.


I see these as being set in order of likelihood, 1 being the most likely, 5 being the least likely)

Haim Ronen posted:
Hungryhalibut posted:

What a wonderful idea. It will really make things better. Why hasn’t someone thought of it earlier?

What a wonderful idea to start such a topic laced with sarcasm and know it all attitude while on the other side of the ocean families of school students and teachers are grieving for their loss and the nation is trying to figure out the best and quickest way to prevent such attacks from occurring again.

 

This is exactly the same approach you took at the time of the last mass shooting in the US where the crux of your response was to focus criticism on a member of this forum for being sarcastic about the Republicans' and the NRA's position on gun control rather than on the question of gun control itself, whilst advocating a general principle that "guns don't kill, people do". 

HH can speak for himself, but I am absolutely sure that his sarcasm was aimed specifically at the shameful position of DT, the NRA and others of the pro gun lobby in the US who continue to peddle the dangerous myth that the way to prevent tragedies such as this recent shooting is to abolish gun-free zones and increase, not decrease the number of weapons in circulation in the US. How on earth an you in good conscience focus your anger on those who criticise the gun lobby at times such as these. 

This whole question of teachers being asked to carry guns as a solution to this problem, as proposed by DT is absolutely ludicrous, and nothing but a fob to his buddies in the NRA, and the suggestion that the problem lies with mental health (or with "the sickos", as described by an NRA representative at the recent town hall debate) rather than with the proliferation of guns is scandalous. Many other countries in the western world have their fair share of mental health issues, but do not suffer the same number of mass killings. Is this because America has a monopoly on serious mental health problems? No, it is self evident that the monopoly 'enjoyed' by the USA is the easy availability of weapons, and more specifically of semi-automatic weapons that are classed as "Assault" weapons.        

A couple of questions for you.

Did you see the truly sickening speech made by Wayne LaPierre to a far right audience shortly after the shooting, where he attempted to focus blame for this type of event on "the corrupt FBI", "the existence of gun free zones", the "creeping European socialism" in American society" and the political opportunism of the Democrats. Can you honestly tell me that you endorse his views rather than feel absolutely nauseated by him? I had never heard of LaPierre before, but I could not believe that anyone could hold the views that he does. DT apparently thinks that he is "good people and a patriot". I have exercised self censorship rather than express my real opinion of LaPierre in this thread.

Did you see the town hall 'debate' involving the surviving students, a couple of Republicans including Marco Rubio and a democrat whose name I cannot recollect? Marco Rubio was roundly and deservedly jeered for his disgraceful attempted support of the NRA and its position. The other Republican on the floor to his credit (and no doubt to the ire of the NRA) at least indicated that he fully supported an immediate ban on all weapons that can be classified as "Assault Weapons". He referred to a list of some 200 weapons that could be classified as assault weapons such as the Kalashnikov and the AR-15 (both ironically manufactured under license in Florida) and that were designed specifically to kill rather than to defend, and which should immediately be banned and recalled. Can you provide a single argument for why this should not immediately happen?

The really telling moment of the debate came when Rubio was asked if he would continue to accept money from the NRA. His tame but entirely expected and utterly shameful response was - "People buy into my agenda, and I do support the second amendment".

      

I should also add that as much as I was sickened by the completely expected response to the recent killings by the far right and the NRA, I was both genuinely moved by, and massively impressed by the students who took part so effectively in the recent town hall debates and in interviews with the mainstream news channels.

Up until now, the whole gun control issue in the States has appeared to be very much in the grip of the NRA and its lackeys. Now, for the first time, looking at the issue from the point of view of an outsider, but one who has enjoyed visiting the US regularly over the past 25 years or so, I see at least some hope for the future. For the first time, the actions of these brave students may well force a sea change in respect of the sale of weapons that should never have been allowed to be available to civilians.        

Huge posted:

MLE = Military and Law Enforcement.

Sorry, I thought it was a commonly known abbreviation.

It makes sense and I guessed that in the context... but Google offered me Maximum Likelihood Estimation or Multicultural London English as results neither fitted!

I am glad HHS thread has attracted so much debate and a lot of it well informed and well intentioned but ultimately there’s nothing here to top Moore’s Bowling for Columbine which must be over ten year old.

As I have previously intimidated I haven’t quite blown enough smoke up my own arse yet to feel empowered to tell Americans how to live in their country.

At some point though surely the public revulsion and backlash against the NRA and Republican support for guns will bring about the necessary legislative and social change to bring about a major reduction in the number of mass shootings.

When the alarm went off at 6.30 yesterday, the first thing I heard on Radio 4 was the suggestion of arming teachers. It was one of the most profoundly depressing things I had heard for a long time. These mass killings are so utterly dreadful that it’s beyond words. I was just astounded that rather than sugggestions of a fundamental look at the underlying issues, and considerations of better gun control and support for those suffering from mental health issues, the reaction in some quarters was to ‘arm the teachers’. The reason for the thread title itself comes from the line ‘hang the DJ’ from Panic. I’ve been to the US only once, to New York, and loved both the place and all the Americans we met. I simply cannot get my head around the gulf between the lovely people we met and the gun toting reactionaries such as the NRA. Of course I don’t have the understanding of the US that its own citizens possess, but as a rational person I simply cannot understand how anyone with an ounce of common sense can think that arming teachers is a good idea. 

I would love to see any NRA person,  preferably the CEO idiot who was on TV yesterday,   armed with a 'concealed' type handgun up against an AR15, the gun type used in the Florida schooling.   At 25 metres a hand gun with a full mag might hit a person sized target,  then again it might not.      An AR15 has an effective range of 500m. 

From my experience of many years traveling the US, the gun owner can be as pleasant and helpful as a non gun owner. The biggest surprise is when a person you have worked with invites you to meet his family for supper and shows you his gun collection in the same way I would show you my Hifi, he might even go into his backyard and demo the weapon.

A few years back Michael Moore made the film "Bowling for Columbine" in which he described the US's fascination with guns. All of the arguments made in this thread appear in the film. However one point he really made was the divergence between the US and other countries with a similar number of privately own fire arms per person. He compared two cities Albuquerque in NM and a similar sized city in Canada.  He compared the content of the evening TV news programs, the Canadian program was upbeat with lots of good news stories where as the Albuquerque  news program was mainly reporting on shooting incidents  so making shooting the norm for life. 

Somehow the US has adopted the frontier mode of life as the norm and is determined to live as if they are living on a frontier and have to defend their existence come what may. 

Bruce Woodhouse posted:

Unfortunately it will seem entirely logical to many. But then when you are so far down the road towards a fully armed populace and security/law enforcement it is hard to see that more reasoned or nuanced choices will have the sort of immediate effect that politicians and a chunk of the population crave.

An armed teacher will shoot a student with a gun and lives will have been 'saved'. Result.

A key element of the US situation is the lack of access and continuity in mental health care for children and adults. Arming teachers sounds a whole lot simpler and obvious then health care reform I'm afraid.

Bruce

Also it is not easy to take someones life.. Teachers are not trained to cope with the chaos involved mind wise 'and probable outcomes.  Nor should they be. Mental health ' the list goes on .  There should be military trained personel in plain clothes for obvious reasons at at all schools. Nothing that is done will stop every situation . It is a diffucult one.

A Statement by Gun Manufacturers and Dealers Worldwide:

1. Guns are there to make us money.

2. We take no responsibility for what people do with their guns nor do we care. (See 1.)

3. We are sorry from the bottom of our tiny hearts if people are killed by our guns in case it stops other people buying more guns (See 1.)

4. We pledge to do everything in our (considerable) power to ensure that no politician, pressure group or other busybody attempts to change the current availability of guns. (See 1.)

steve

These people going into schools to kill as many people as possible more often or not get shot dead anyway don’t they? So having teachers with guns isn’t going to stop them. There is a chance though that not as many people will get killed I suppose.  It’s virtually impossible to stop these things happening, even if they ban guns they’re everywhere in America.

Hungryhalibut posted:

When the alarm went off at 6.30 yesterday, the first thing I heard on Radio 4 was the suggestion of arming teachers. It was one of the most profoundly depressing things I had heard for a long time. These mass killings are so utterly dreadful that it’s beyond words. I was just astounded that rather than sugggestions of a fundamental look at the underlying issues, and considerations of better gun control and support for those suffering from mental health issues, the reaction in some quarters was to ‘arm the teachers’. The reason for the thread title itself comes from the line ‘hang the DJ’ from Panic. I’ve been to the US only once, to New York, and loved both the place and all the Americans we met. I simply cannot get my head around the gulf between the lovely people we met and the gun toting reactionaries such as the NRA. Of course I don’t have the understanding of the US that its own citizens possess, but as a rational person I simply cannot understand how anyone with an ounce of common sense can think that arming teachers is a good idea. 

HH,

I can only read your words and not your thoughts. Anyway, thanks for the clarification.

Haim

Hmack posted:
Haim Ronen posted:
Hungryhalibut posted:

What a wonderful idea. It will really make things better. Why hasn’t someone thought of it earlier?

What a wonderful idea to start such a topic laced with sarcasm and know it all attitude while on the other side of the ocean families of school students and teachers are grieving for their loss and the nation is trying to figure out the best and quickest way to prevent such attacks from occurring again.

 

This is exactly the same approach you took at the time of the last mass shooting in the US where the crux of your response was to focus criticism on a member of this forum for being sarcastic about the Republicans' and the NRA's position on gun control rather than on the question of gun control itself, whilst advocating a general principle that "guns don't kill, people do". 

HH can speak for himself, but I am absolutely sure that his sarcasm was aimed specifically at the shameful position of DT, the NRA and others of the pro gun lobby in the US who continue to peddle the dangerous myth that the way to prevent tragedies such as this recent shooting is to abolish gun-free zones and increase, not decrease the number of weapons in circulation in the US. How on earth an you in good conscience focus your anger on those who criticise the gun lobby at times such as these. 

This whole question of teachers being asked to carry guns as a solution to this problem, as proposed by DT is absolutely ludicrous, and nothing but a fob to his buddies in the NRA, and the suggestion that the problem lies with mental health (or with "the sickos", as described by an NRA representative at the recent town hall debate) rather than with the proliferation of guns is scandalous. Many other countries in the western world have their fair share of mental health issues, but do not suffer the same number of mass killings. Is this because America has a monopoly on serious mental health problems? No, it is self evident that the monopoly 'enjoyed' by the USA is the easy availability of weapons, and more specifically of semi-automatic weapons that are classed as "Assault" weapons.        

A couple of questions for you.

Did you see the truly sickening speech made by Wayne LaPierre to a far right audience shortly after the shooting, where he attempted to focus blame for this type of event on "the corrupt FBI", "the existence of gun free zones", the "creeping European socialism" in American society" and the political opportunism of the Democrats. Can you honestly tell me that you endorse his views rather than feel absolutely nauseated by him? I had never heard of LaPierre before, but I could not believe that anyone could hold the views that he does. DT apparently thinks that he is "good people and a patriot". I have exercised self censorship rather than express my real opinion of LaPierre in this thread.

Did you see the town hall 'debate' involving the surviving students, a couple of Republicans including Marco Rubio and a democrat whose name I cannot recollect? Marco Rubio was roundly and deservedly jeered for his disgraceful attempted support of the NRA and its position. The other Republican on the floor to his credit (and no doubt to the ire of the NRA) at least indicated that he fully supported an immediate ban on all weapons that can be classified as "Assault Weapons". He referred to a list of some 200 weapons that could be classified as assault weapons such as the Kalashnikov and the AR-15 (both ironically manufactured under license in Florida) and that were designed specifically to kill rather than to defend, and which should immediately be banned and recalled. Can you provide a single argument for why this should not immediately happen?

The really telling moment of the debate came when Rubio was asked if he would continue to accept money from the NRA. His tame but entirely expected and utterly shameful response was - "People buy into my agenda, and I do support the second amendment".

      

I am going to ask you to try and find the text where according to you I had advocated the principle of "people kill and not guns" because I never said such a thing. On the contrary, I clearly stated that I was against ownership of assault weapons by private persons.

I always take exception to your British wasted arrogance which is annoying and unnecessary. Would I ever have a chance to change your mind simply by being pompous and condensating? 

To answer your questions: 

I did not bother to listen to La Pierre nor Rubio because both, the NRA and the Repulican party, had completely lost their senses in the last twenty years in regard to gun laws. It is enough that once in a while I have to argue with friends NRA memebers who yammer about the Second Ammendment and the freedom to carry guns. I ask them if on the same principal I am allowed to own handgrenades and land mines and when they say that I am taking the idea too far I respond that they had already done that by advocating military grade weapons ownership for civilians.

Few points I would like to make:

It is unfortunate, or furtunate, depending on how you look at it, that attacks on schools in affluent suburbs where the parents have a bigger say and the kids are more articulate create larger waves and draw more attention.

Without wishing that on anyone, I am sure that if similar attacks took place targetting the same fancy schools in the capital which the politician's kids attend, there would be an acute urgency to rectify the current absurd gun laws.

A teenager in Florida has to reach 18 to be able to buy legally an assault rifle and then he has to wait another three years to be 21 to be able to buy his first can of beer.

I am against arming the teachers. Schools should have an armed policeman who hopefully will be brave enough to perform his duty and stop any attacker.

The biggest challenge we face is to pass a legislation that completely bans the ownership of assault weapons which will shrink the lethality of mass shootings by a huge chunk.

Have a good weekend.

 

 

There is also the question of why, since I don't know of any other country where similar attacks are conducted in times of peace against one's own fellow civilians: why in schools? Is it against teenagers or against education? All those ridiculous B-movies where boys from high school are massacred around the swimming pool, have no relation at all with what is actually happening? Just a question.

Max_B posted:

There is also the question of why, since I don't know of any other country where similar attacks are conducted in times of peace against one's own fellow civilians: why in schools? Is it against teenagers or against education? All those ridiculous B-movies where boys from high school are massacred around the swimming pool, have no relation at all with what is actually happening? Just a question.

Don't think of USA as a country, better to think of it as a large part of the dry bit of the world.     That these people have no relation at all with what is actually happening is vertiginous to the rest of the world in a scaled up version of loneliness, in that sense that we are all alone - just that some parts and some people are more so.

I really don’t understand the focus on machine guns and the trm “assault weapons”. First of all, any gun is, or can be used as, a weapon of assault, and secondly as much damage can be done, just a bit slower, with semi automatics or even simple pistols.

I do not feel competent to offer any proposal for fixing the cause where these things happen apparently so readily in the US, given that guns are so ingrained in the American psyche, and in any case with so many in circulation, that in reality they can’t be erradicated.

Instead of cure, it seems that prevention is the only solution, despite that being counter-intuitive. And for that,  the answer is actually quite simple: schools should be made into fortresses, with armed guards on permanent patrol duty outside, and airport-type security for everyone entering (and that includes teachers and students). Maybe if, as I trust is the case, Americans really do want to stop such atrocities, then if they cannot bite the bullet (pun not intended) and get rid of weapons, they really have to commit to drastic action like this to prevent. It may be expensive, but what cost the young lives so frequently taken - and it could be funded by a tax on guns and ammunition.

Drewy posted:

These people going into schools to kill as many people as possible more often or not get shot dead anyway don’t they? So having teachers with guns isn’t going to stop them. There is a chance though that not as many people will get killed I suppose.  It’s virtually impossible to stop these things happening, even if they ban guns they’re everywhere in America.

I too cannot see why armed teachers would be a deterrent for that reason.  They know, at some level, that they are not likely to survive the day anyway.  But I would worry that the number of deaths might actually increase as it turns into a shoot-out, with people caught in the crossfire and by rounds that miss their targets.

Haim Ronen posted:

I" am going to ask you to try and find the text where according to you I had advocated the principle of "people kill and not guns" because I never said such a thing. On the contrary, I clearly stated that I was against ownership of assault weapons by private persons."

I apologise unreservedly for insinuating that you had voiced support for the NRA or voiced the opinion that "guns don't kill - people do". I have checked the previous thread related to this issue, and in that thread you did indeed voice your very strong criticism of the NRA, and made it absolutely clear that you were totally against the free availability of assault guns and similar weapons. 

However, I do not believe as you obviously do, that my comments (aside from my incorrect assumption that your comment about HH's post indicated that you were pro NRA and anti gun control), suggest that I have a "Wasted British Arrogance" for my views on the NRA and gun control in the States.  I have both friends and relatives who live in the US, and I have visited the US on vacation on many occasions.  I completely stand by everything I said in my post on this thread with the exception of my assertion that you had previously voiced support for the NRA which was obviously just plain wrong, and which I should clearly have checked before posting.

I still believe that your response (below) about HH's post about the wisdom of arming teachers was misinterpreted and completely inappropriate: 

"What a wonderful idea to start such a topic laced with sarcasm and know it all attitude while on the other side of the ocean families of school students and teachers are grieving for their loss and the nation is trying to figure out the best and quickest way to prevent such attacks from occurring again".

In fact your post was uncannily similar to a contribution on another recent thread entitled "I am glad....." which read

 "What a sad place this has become.  "I am glad..." ?

I have never seen such a large and growing selfish, self-centred group of people on this earth as I have witnessed lately.  So long as you are OK you couldn't give two hoots about your neighbor?

Many people have died today and many more injured.  Yet, the political opportunists pop up like nasty weeds with their wisdom".

The poster of the above comment (and which I had inexcusably incorrectly associated with you) did go on to express a number of controversial views such as "people kill and not guns", that "there is no correlation between the proliferation of guns and serious crime", and the laughable assertion that "the most dangerous place to live in the developed Western World is Scotland".  

You and a number of others appear to have a view that criticism of the NRA and gun control legislation in the US by those who do not live in the US constitutes arrogance, and is a criticism of the US and its people as a whole. Patently, for the most part it is not. And if you were to read and follow a number of other threads in the Padded Cell forum, you would quickly pick up on the fact that those of us on the other side of the ocean are (surprisingly) not of the opinion that everything in our down domain is perfect, and that in a number of respects we are every bit as divided as a nation in other matters as the US appears to be in respect of the issues of both gun control and a rather unsavoury prominent politician.

Once again, I apologise unreservedly for my assertion that you support the NRA and the availability for sale of assault weapons.

However, I don't apologise for my "arrogant British views" of the NRA, gun control legislation in the US or the unmentionable prominent politician in the US.     

 

 

Richard Dane posted:
Derek Wright posted:

We had a teacher with "anger management" issues, 99.9% of the time he was a good teacher but if a pupil strayed he would be doing a "chinese burn", or throwing the blackboard cleaner (a block of wood with chalk dust impregnated felt attached to it - left a mark on the target to indicate the accuracy of the aim) or attempting to strangle the pupil.

We had a maths teacher who was a crack shot with chalk, but every now and then he would up the ante by deploying the wooden blackboard cleaner. It hurt like hell, and heaven help you if you blubbed.  

Oh, and a headmaster whose favourite ploy was the death grip, where he'd go to shake your hand and once he had your hand in his, he would gradually crush it so you would end up writhing around on your knees begging for mercy.

Happy days.

We had the extremely dubious pleasure of being entertained by a maths teacher whose anger management issues boiled over into a different kind of death grip.  One of our fellow pupils was not the brightest of mathematicians which provoked extreme frustration in the maths teacher.  To the point that I can recall two occasions when the teacher's face was bright red whilst he held said pupil with an arm aggressively locked around the poor chap's throat.  Very scary for the class of pupils.  What might the outcome have been were he carrying a fire arm?  He is not typical, but one end of a spectrum - let's hope our American friends don't place their teachers in such a terrible predicament of being obliged to carry a gun - particularly if they happen to have a military past.

Peter

Innocent Bystander posted:

I really don’t understand the focus on machine guns and the trm “assault weapons”. First of all, any gun is, or can be used as, a weapon of assault, and secondly as much damage can be done, just a bit slower, with semi automatics or even simple pistols.

 

On October 1, 2017 a shooter situated on the 32nd floor of an hotel in Las Vegas opened fire with assault rifles on a crowd attending a concert from a distance of 200 yards, leaving 58 people dead and 851 injured. How many people you think would have gotten hurt if he had instead fired handguns from the same position? Zero. And if he had managed to use the handguns within their effective range (40 yards) he couldn't have caused even 5% of the damage he did with his rifles.

How do you think a law enfrocement officer feels when confronting a person armed with an assault weapon knowing that his bullet proof vest is not capable of stopping the high velocity bullets which might be fired at him?

Haim Ronen posted:
Innocent Bystander posted:

I really don’t understand the focus on machine guns and the trm “assault weapons”. First of all, any gun is, or can be used as, a weapon of assault, and secondly as much damage can be done, just a bit slower, with semi automatics or even simple pistols.

 

On October 1, 2017 a shooter situated on the 32nd floor of an hotel in Las Vegas opened fire with assault rifles on a crowd attending a concert from a distance of 200 yards, leaving 58 people dead and 851 injured. How many people you think would have gotten hurt if he had instead fired handguns from the same position? Zero. And if he had managed to use the handguns within their effective range (40 yards) he couldn't have caused even 5% of the damage he did with his rifles.

How do you think a law enfrocement officer feels when confronting a person armed with an assault weapon knowing that his bullet proof vest is not capable of stopping the high velocity bullets which might be fired at him?

I was thinking of the damage that a person can do in the school situation, rather than the concert incident, and whilst slower someone could still kill or maim a large number of people if he/she had semi-automatoc weapons or even multiple pistols so as not to have to reload.

The last point is valid, though it is a distinction of which I was unaware having zero knowledge of firearm or protection capability? 

But as I asked, surely every gun is an assault weapon? With the exception of a very small proportion of guns that are sold purely for animal hunting, the vast majority are made for one purpose, and only one purpose, which is to kill or maim human beings. Completely immoral apart from in the hands of legitimate and properly trained formal defence organisations.

Mike-B posted:

I would love to see any NRA person,  preferably the CEO idiot who was on TV yesterday,   armed with a 'concealed' type handgun up against an AR15, the gun type used in the Florida schooling.   At 25 metres a hand gun with a full mag might hit a person sized target,  then again it might not.      An AR15 has an effective range of 500m. 

I know little about guns but would imagine that within the confines of a building with many rooms someone trained to use a pistol might have something of an advantage over someone untrained using an assault rifle on the basis that the range is very short and the pistol is much more easily brought to bear on its target compared to a heavy and long rifle.    

Likes (1)
Innocent Bystander
×
×
×
×