driftrider

Why are you YELLING? Please turn the CAPS lock off.

Mike

huntingbuddy419

it has been interesting to read all of yalls comments, I do believe teachers and otheres who have ccw permits should be allowed to carry anywhere, if cops can carry anywhere then why cant ccw permit holders they have to do the same tests.

jcb9901

here some good reading on the subject

Gun-free zone: "Free fire zone for criminals to murder with impunity"
>>>>>>>>>>>>&g t;>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>&g t;
The False Hope of Gun-Free Zones
By Gerard Valentino CNSNews.com Commentary December 16, 2004

Few people remember the school shooting in Pearl, Mississippi that took place in October 1997. Fewer people remember how it ended.

This episode came to a close when Pearl High School Assistant Principal Joel Myrick sprinted a quarter mile to retrieve a personal handgun from his car and confronted the shooter who was unwilling to continue the attack against an armed victim.

Myrick parked so far away from the school to keep from violating federal gun free zone statutes. By the time the shooting spree ended, two students lay dead and seven others were wounded. Myrick's heroic defense of the children at his school was sparsely reported, going mostly unnoticed by the establishment media who were unwilling to report that he used a gun to end the mayhem and murder.

They were also unwilling to ask the hard question - how many children died while Myrick sprinted to his car?

Compare the carnage at Pearl High School with that of the Luby's cafeteria in Killeen, Texas, where a gunman murdered 22 people and wounded 18 others before turning the gun on himself. Among those at Luby's on October 16, 1991 was a woman who was proficient with handguns, but obeyed the law by leaving her legal handgun in her vehicle because.

At times she was within feet of the killer and instinctively reached for her gun which wasn't there. By the time it was over, her mother and father were among the dead.

Once again, the media never asked how many people were killed because the license holder was disarmed.

Past instances of mass shootings, and common sense, teach us that when a victim resists with a firearm the violence ends quickly. Arguments claiming armed intervention by citizens leads to higher death tolls do not stand up to scrutiny. Death tolls are demonstrably higher when victims are unable to fight back as compared to cases where an armed victim resists.

It's time to ask how many more people must needlessly die before gun control activists and legislators realize that disarming law-abiding citizens leaves them easy prey to criminals. The recent massacre at a Columbus, Ohio nightclub proves yet again that so-called gun free zones only benefit criminals.

The Ohio legislature and Ohio Governor Bob Taft left everyone in that nightclub without a chance to fight for their lives because under Ohio's concealed carry law, license holders are banned from carrying in any establishment that serves alcohol - even if the licensee does not drink.

At first it sounds like good public policy to ban firearms in establishments that serve liquor. Further scrutiny however reveals that any gun free zone, including schools, restaurants, bars and government buildings offer criminals the freedom to kill with impunity.

The Columbus nightclub shooter was stopped by a city police officer who happened to be in the area and responded quickly to calls for help. However, we also know that a concealed handgun license holder was in the crowd that night, but was un-armed in accordance with the law. At times, he was less than five feet from the gunman but could do nothing.

A similar scenario unfolds in nearly every massacre committed with a firearm across the United States. Most take place in what gun-rights activists call victims-zones; areas deemed too dangerous, either by government or a private business, to allow legal firearms.

What gun-control advocates fail to grasp is criminals, by definition, do not follow the law and therefore any attempt to keep them from carrying a gun into a given establishment will fail, often with tragic results.

The goal of legislators nationwide shouldn't be to keep armed law-abiding citizens from bearing arms in restaurants, bars, schools and so forth. It should be to keep criminals with guns from entering such locations.

Posting signs designating an area as "gun free" does not keep criminals from entering with a gun; they invite criminals who know nobody can stop them.

And that is exactly what they want.

huntingbuddy419

wow jcb that was really mind bogling its, hard to believe people can be that stupid as not to allow law abiding citizens from carrying guns. and how most of america think that laws stop everybody from doing bad when they really dont thnx for that very informative peace.

Nomercy

I'll pose this question, then, basing this on the recent post by "a bunch of letters and a couple numbers"....J something...

Say I'm in a diner like the woman in the Luby's, I've got my gun, someone comes in to rob the place telling the clerk to give him the cash, at gun point...no threats are made to my person, nor anyone in my party...Why should it be my job to defend the clerk? If he wants to be benefited by a concealed weapon, he should damn well have his own, cuz I'm lookin out for me and mine, and not getting shot defending someone I don't know.

Now, if I'm a teacher, a student comes in hell bent on killing everyone, that's one thing, my life would be threatened, but all too often, gun toters are expected to act, at great personal risk, in manners that not even trained police officers or soldiers would be expected to perform. We have police to defend the public, I carry my gun to defend me, if Me, myself, or I, or any of those in my party or family are threatened, then the job becomes mine.

How can we require teachers to defend students at their own risk? Call me a coward if you like, but I'll be honest, and you should be with yourself, what are you going to do if someone comes in shooting? I'm hiding behind my desk, if they come looking for me, then I'll fight back to cover my hide, but until then, I'm safe, I'm not going to go looking for a bullet. Sure I'd take an open opportunity shot at a distracted gunman, but I'm not going to be jerking a gun when they come through the door, Cover first, then fight when the fight is yours to win or you have no choice, otherwise you're standing in the open and asking for fire.

jcb9901

You can let them go,but it's like spiderman where he let the guy go, just to go outside to see the guy shot his dad.If you can't guarrantee that he won't run into your family somewhere when your not around to protect them .if you saw the robbery he must be in your neigborhood.There was a multible murder her in cleveland a week or so ago where the robber shot and killed the clerk and then went outside to shot a mother of an infant that left during the robbery before she could find safety.

Nomercy

Like I said, I'm just being honest...unless you've had bullets flying around you, or seen the gleam of a chambered bullet looking at you down a barrel, you don't know how you're going to react. Maybe you'll jump up and save the day, or maybe you'll jump up and get two in the chest. Most likely, someone runs in and tells you to eat dirt, you're going to eat dirt because he's got you by surprise.

In a school shooting situation, there isn't going to be any running into them later. They're getting caught or killed before they even leave the building, and they aren't making it far if they even see the light of day.

As for the woman outside Luby's...Who's to say someone with a gun on the inside could have saved her? Or maybe she'd have lived and the infant's father inside with the gun is dead instead. Do some checking on how many robbery cases that involve gunfire also had someone fighting back, then cross check how many of those people took a bullet and how many of the robbers still got away (at least temporarily).

Remember the show "Roseanne"? I absolutely HATED that show, but there was one true thing I saw on it...Rose's sister became a cop, and Rose asked her, "what if someone with a gun grabs you like this"...the sister said, "well I'd just" "BAM"..."you'd just what?" There's not much chance to get the drop on someone with a gun in their hand watching you....people get killed, there's no way around it.

I got a permit to protect myself, not to be someone's hero, or to play billy bad@$$ cop wannabe. If I wanted to protect people I don't know, I'd have became a cop, but I don't, so I didn't.

driftrider

Nomercy,

First of all, how did you get a CCW when Kansas is one of the states that does not issue them to civilians?

Secondly, you're telling me that you'd run and hide behind a desk when some madman murdered children? If this is true, you're not just a coward, you're far, far worse. It's this very "I'm not going to get involved" attitude that allows criminals to do what they do.

I can understand not going looking for trouble, but when you're in that convenience store when the crackhead with a gun walks in with a gun, like it or not you're in danger. Now, If you aren't willing to protect the lives of other just because you aren't paid to do it, fine. I don't think that any state's law require a civilian to act in the defense of others. But your desire to look out only for yourself should not preclude others from doing what you refuse to do.

As far as a teacher goes, I think that it's reasonable to state that a teacher IS, or at least ought to be, duty bound to protect their students if the opportunity presents itself. I'd have you note that no one has suggested that it should be mandatory for teachers to be armed, but simply that they ought to be allowed to CHOOSE to go armed and bear the added responsibilities that entails.

Well, they sure as heck aren't doing a very good job! I'm sure the victims of violent crime (the ones who survived that is) would say that the cops didn't do squat to protect them. And I don't blame cops for this either, because protection of individuals is far beyond the scope of law enforcement. When it comes to protection, we can rely only on ourselves and maybe the off chance that a good samaritan or LEO will be very nearby when our butts are threatened.

This statement simply proves how out of touch with reality you are. Courts have long held that the police have NO RESPONSIBILITY to protect individuals from harm caused by criminals out of their presense, and can not be held liable in either civil or criminal courts for their failure to provide such protection. So sum it up succinctly; if the cops aren't there, they have no obligation to protect anyone, and can't even if they did, and you can't sue them when they don't. Consider this, nationwide there are about one law enforcement officer per 1,000 citizens. If 1/4 of the cops are on duty at any given time of the day, that makes one cop per 4,000 citizens on AVERAGE. What do you think the odds are of a cop being close enough to protect anyone, if contacting them is even possible?

Are you paying attention? The woman was INSIDE the restaurant when the madman walked in, along with her parents. It was her GUN that was outside in the car because at the time Texas did not allow concealed carry. She left the gun in the car because the law said so, and when the nutjob walked in and started blasting everybody, she had the opportunity to shoot the gun but not the means. Because of this, she watched her parents and 20 other people gets gunned down in cold blood. This was the incident that motivated the efforts that eventually won back the citizens of Texas' the right to carry.

Please feel free to post these statistics, I'm not doing your homework for you.

What's your point? If this happens, armed or not, it won't matter. But at least being armed provides the CHANCE that the victim might stop their attacker. An unarmed victim is HELPLESS to an armed attacker who can kill them at their leisure. Relating this to the topic at hand, if the bad guy walks into a classroom and shoots the armed teacher before (s)he can react, then the outcome will be no different than if the teacher had not been armed in the first place. But if the perp doesn't get the jump on the teacher then there is the possibility that, like the asst. Principal that I and jcb9901 mentioned (thank's for posting that BTW, that's the incident that I was originally referring to), that they might be able to end the attack and minimize the casualties to innocents.

Mike