Teacher loses appeal to carry gun at school

Medford teacher Shirley Katz, who was denied permission to take her handgun to South Medford High School, has lost her appeal to the Oregon Court of Appeals.

The court opinion, issued Wednesday by Judge Jack Landau, upheld a November 2007 decision by the Jackson County Circuit Court that affirmed the Medford School District's authority to prohibit employees from carrying firearms on school grounds.

"I'm disappointed, obviously," Katz said. "I am surprised. I never thought they would uphold it."

More


The teacher is a dumbass for wanting to take her weapon to work, and I am glad the appeals court upheld the decision by the school district. Kids aren't allowed to carry weapons to school, so why should teachers?

..... Now take out your Social Studies books.....OR ELSE !!!!!

And as we all know, the only possible solution to such a conundrum is to pack heat and be ready to use it at all times.

There's still the Oregon Supreme Court for Ms. Katz.

Schools monitor who enter their school grounds. She could ask that she have escorts to her car - perhaps leave the gun locked up in the office and away from students.

which is just down the road on Oakdale Avenue (and who patrol the area), and even the sheriff's department, which is located across the way from the Medford Police Department.

:eyes:

But that dont work out so good either .

Guarded by police, woman slain

LOS ANGELES, Nov. 12 (UPI) -- Investigators were trying to determine Thursday how a man got into a woman's apartment and killed her while police stood watch outside, Los Angeles police said.

Police at the scene shot the attacker but not before he fatally stabbed the woman, the Los Angeles Times reported.....................

they have campus police, and city police departments looking out for them.

Despite all the hysteria we're actually at an historic low for violent death rates in schools. It's just that occasionally now some of the victims are white suburban kids, so everyone freaks out.

That was fast.

Can you bottom deal, too?

where an employee (her employer forbids employee carrying of guns by policy, although there is no LAW in our state prohibiting carry on college campuses) was sitting in her office and her estranged ex, against whom she had a protective order, simply walked on to campus, with a concealed gun (that he was of course carrying illegally since he had a DV order against him, and those prohibit carry of a firearm or even posession of same), into her office building, into her office, and blew her away.

so, all other factors aside, the only person directly responsible and directly capable of protecting her... is her.

i can guarantee that i could walk on to most high school campuses in plain clothes with a concealed weapon and walk right into a classroom before being stopped. i might get unlucky and happen to run into the armed school resource officer, but i've walked on to high school campuses SCORES of times either as a plainclothes detective or a patrol officer, and not even SEEN the school resource officer. they might be teaching a DARE class, in their office, at lunch ,etc. they are not savoir faire for pete's sake.

again, regardless of her merits or lack thereof on a LEGAL BASIS, from a practical basis, she is the only one who can protect her

and most schools there (and in almost every rural area I've ever been to) have never even heard the term "School Resource Officer" before. (And if there was ever an example of Orwellian linguistics... But I digress). How do you propose funding armed guards in places (and they're not just rural, these days) that already lack funds for basics like books or chalk? Are you going to volunteer your time? Are you going to make sure there is one guard per classroom, because that is the minimum required to have any noticeable effect should something bad happen. Got extras for response teams, vacations, sick days? And what about if those schools are miles away from the nearest police? Are you going to fund moving one or the other? Can you personally guarantee instantaneous response times, even from departments in close proximity?

I think you are full of the fail.

When the people monitoring the metal detectors are unarmed. You know what happens when they find what they're looking for? The vice principal gets chased through the school and shot in the ass, that's what.

firearms are often more effective. Deal with it.

she has a very good chance at the SCOTUS

After all of her bullshit, her own husband shot and killed her in her own home. When I read about it, I wondered what took him so long.

Shame on you. It's not the kid's fault his Parents were dumbasses, and to wonder why anyone 'took so long' to kill another human being because they are a dumbass is beyond the pale. Life is irreplaceable. period. This isn't a video game we live in.


I'm done.

So your point about the soccer game was the sidearm was visible.... So what happened... did it go 'off' were children shot??? were children paralyzed by it's presence? do the children that witnessed the glaring magnitude of this sidearm blinded for life???? I mean I want to know how much harm came to the poor little children because of this incident... think of the children!

The whole thing went to her head and she became a media whore. It got WAY too much coverage around here (local event).

he blew her brains out. Guess she had a reason to be worried. What a shitty post upstream. Even by the DU sewer standard of late.

I offer you an invitation to the world.

You are sick.

Without real security measures such as those found at courthouses and the secured areas of airports, a "no guns" policy is meaningless, and a potential invitation for someone looking for an easy target.

Like what happened at Fort Hood.

Any facility that bars people from lawfully carrying weapons should be held accountable for the safety of people who enter it.

Your "argument" holds no water at all.

If this woman is afraid of her ex, she should use the court system, not try to take matters into her own hands.

I think she is full of shit, anyway.

FYI, no state issues concealed weapons permits to anyone under age 21.

If this woman is afraid of her ex, she should use the court system, not try to take matters into her own hands.

A restraining order is useless against someone who really wants to harm you. Defense of your self is always in your own hands, whether you choose to take responsibility for it or not.

Maybe he's not a threat. Maybe he is. You seem all too willing to bet her life on it.

:shrug:

We have enforceable rules of civilized behaivor that protect us from what we justifiably fear. They are not perfect. Where they fail we have to see to our self defense on our own. It's unfair to assume that the woman in question is overracting although that may well be the case.

The teacher is full of shit. She sounds like one of those NRA gun nuts.

I don't want a teacher working who is so stupid she would put her students at risk.

and we don't know that of course, a restraining order is useless if someone really wants to hurt you. Women with restraining orders get brutalized and killed all the time because the guy that is out to get them is shit nuts and doesn't care.

She may be over reacting since the restraining order wasn't renewed. She may have given up on restraining orders since he may have continued to harass her in spite of them and the authorities couldn't do anything about it. We don't know, and that's the point. If someone wants to do violence they will exploit the gaping windows of opportunity in court adjudication, police response time, and the predictable rhythms of a woman just trying to go about the daily routine of her life.

You can't argue this with me. I have taught in schools; I lived in the area for nearly 30 years. She has choices, including calling the police which are nearby, not out in the sticks.

She's obviously a gun nut and is being represented by a gun nut organization.

You seem to have no problem with students at risk of getting killed because of this moron teacher's insistence on packing a weapon.

She isn't dead now, so I think your "argument" is full of holes.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jd3vWsa4ags

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ExC7fE1LaY

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qVhdK8nL9l0

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gbQdaX35Y0s

You're making a ton of unsupported assumptions. You may be right, you may be wrong. I hope you're right. Just try to remember the vast majority of people don't arm themselves for no reason. It's too much trouble. I find it best not to judge people until I understand their individual circumstances.

No-one is trying to justify the "antics" of an abusive ex. Nor yours.

We may as well abandon anything resembling a legal system, since it's all useless if someone wants to hurt you, and instead arm ourselves to the teeth and hope for the best.


FUCK YES.

Look at the current argument on terror trials. They don't want a legal system. They just want to be able to shoot people.

Each individual will make his or her own risk assesment after taking into consideration the environmental factors around them.

The reality is that the system just cannot protect us all the time. If someone wants you, they can get to you. Most of us don't have to worry about it. Some of us do; Women with crazy ex husbands and boyfriends. People who live in dangerous neighborhoods or who have to deal with dangerous people. Even people who have to travel through dangerous neighborhoods or people may rightfully need to arm themslves because the cops just can't get there fast enough to intervene in an ambush.

Since we live in a pretty safe country most people just won't feel the need to go to the trouble and expense of carrying a firearm. It's a pain in the ass unless you really need to, then it's a necessary evil. That's good. If anybody (like the *gasp* NRA) advocated that all gun owners be required to carry weapons they'd be told to screw off before quick. The vast, overwhelming majority of gun owners would rather not deal with carrying a firearm on their person.

It may indeed be all useless if someone wants to hurt you, but I can't in good concience deny you the right to find some way to help yourself, no matter how long the odds, if I can't come up with a way to do it for you.

Since Max Rockatanski (Mel Gibson's character) is a police officer, who quits after he expresses concern to his superior that he becoming as violent as the biker gang members he's fighting ("I'm scared, Fif. It's that rat circus out there, I'm beginning to enjoy it. Look, any longer out on that road and I'm one of them, a terminal psychotic, except that I've got this bronze badge that says that I'm one of the good guys. ") but while he's trying to rehabilitate himself, the biker gang murders his wife and child.

Is the point you're trying to make that, even if you try to renounce violence, that won't stop others from inflicting violence on you? Or did you just not see the film?

Only a fool or a liar would claim otherwise.

:eyes:

order expired; she is full of shit.

Do you have any idea what this story is about, or about the legalities of the use of deadly force?

Any idea at all?

The RO has no bearing on her right to self-defense. NONE!

is not that she would be packing, but that one of her students could get their hands on the gun, a la Harris and Klebold.

Have you forgotten such recent history?

not how they obtained the weapons. Klebold and Harris worked hard to get the guns before an attack. A teacher bringing a gun to school gives the students a chance to get a gun the second their adolescent hormones fire up out of control.

Unless the teacher plans to wear a holster, and wouldn't that be a lovely way to encourage discussion in her class! I mean, what student wouldn't want to challenge a particular view of world history or authoritarian practices or even ask if authors other than dead white men could be read for book reports knowing that their teacher was armed?

A normal kid doesn't mess with a teacher's personal belongings.

To take a concealed weapon from someone who is carrying it properly would necessarily involve assault.

I mean, what student wouldn't want to... ...knowing that their teacher was armed?

You seem to be unclear on the concept of CONCEALED weapons.

You can't anticipate what any of them might do, after all. They're all so unpredictable!! You can't know which kids taking Advanced Placement classes, like Klibold and Harris did, might be planning violent rampages after school. Better close down all the public and private universities, too, because you never know when a student might snap like happened at Virginia Tech or Northern Illinois University. Yes, what a much better world it will be when all the public schools are abolished and all citizens carry concealed weapons! Wow, I feel safer already knowing you're working on this radical new vision for world peace!

Other than to say it's really lame.

Yeah, that's not a lame suggestion at all. :eyes:

Violent essays, artwork, Web postings.

Little things that parents could pay more attention to, like sawing down shotgun barrels.

You left out the point of students not learning anything productive anyways....So what is the point of even going to school, just to use the lunchroom???

Are you familiar with the case?

In June 1999, Jessica Gonzales had a restraining order issued against her estranged husband Michael, ordering him to stay 100 yards from her or their three daughters except during specified visitation times. The court order itself, as well as Colorado state law at the time, required law enforcement agencies to arrest the subject of the order if they they had reasonable suspicion that the subject was in violation of the terms of the order.

Eighteen days after the order was was issued, Michael Gonzales abducted the three daughters (around 1715). Jessica, coming home from work to find her three daughters gone, phoned Castle Rock PD to report that the girls were missing, and that she suspected Michael had taken them (1930). The officer answering the phone told her to call back after a few hours, to make sure the girls were really missing. An hour later, Michael called Jessica, saying he was at an amusement park in Denver with the girls. Jessica immediately phone Castle Rock PD (2030), telling them of the phone call, Michael's location, and the fact that he stated (in effect) that he was in violation of the restraining order. The cops told her to call back later. After two more phone calls, Jessica went to the Castle Rock police station at 0040 to file a report. The officer who took her report immediately thereafter took a meal break. At 0320, Michael pulled up outside Castle Rock police station and started shooting at the building. He was killed by return from the police, who subsequently discovered the corpses of the three girls in the back of his truck.

The SCOTUS' ruling in this case formally confirmed what realists had suspected for years, namely that a restraining order is utterly worthless, and that law enforcement cannot be held responsible for failing to make so much as a good faith effort to intervene in a crime in progress, even when required to by court order and state law.

Possibly Ms Katz didn't bother to get the restraining order on her husband renewed because she understood it wouldn't compel local law enforcement to lift a finger in the event her husband showed up with malicious intent.

The courts are not good at protecting people.

THIS IS A FUCKING SCHOOL. YOU DON'T CARRY WEAPONS IN SCHOOL, so that students get hold of them.

There are police nearby for her to call.

I think the woman is nuts. Period.

Metal detectors, X-ray machines, security guards. Anything less than that is just window dressing.

YOU DON'T CARRY WEAPONS IN SCHOOL

Why not? The rent-a-cops we hire do.

Making schools "gun free zones" is painting a GIANT FUCKING TARGET on the backs of our children? You know why? BECAUSE THE FUCKING CRIMINALS DON'T GIVE A FUCKING SHIT ABOUT YOUR STUPID FUCKING "GUN FREE ZONE" SIGN!!

I would honestly feel safer if I knew that qualified adults at my kids school were allowed to conceal carry, as they would have the best chance of putting a quick end to any sort of school shooting event, even over the police, because shock of shocks, the police aren't exactly JOHNY ON THE FUCKING SPOT with these sorts of things, because you can't possibly have enough police officers everywhere at all times to protect everybody, not even schools.

What it comes down is that you HATE the idea of taking personal responsibility for your own safety, therefore you HATE the idea of others doing that same thing.

What evidence do you have to back up this assertion?

What is the police response time?

How much damage can a deranged ex do during that response time?

You seem very willing to gamble the lives and well-being of others on your histrionics.

I don't see you offering to help provide for this woman's safety. Telling, that.

In the classroom may be better, if people would stop making a big deal out of it.

And why oh why would you assume she would have trouble with students getting ahold of her gun, but not the police officers guns? After all, the officers wear them right there on their hips where they could just be grabbed.

She is full of shit.

Yet.

Are willing to personally guarantee and be responsible for her continued safety?

Well?

It may come as a surprise, but the law designates individuals as being sufficiently mature to engage in certain behaviors when they reach a certain age; e.g. 16 for operating a motor vehicle, 18 for voting, having sex, enlisting in the armed forces, and owning a firearm, and 21 for consuming alcohol and getting a license to carry a concealed firearm in public. These ages are set somewhat arbitrarily, and we can argue over what is the appropriate age for each activity (I'm from the Netherlands, where you can buy beer and wine and have sex at 16, but not drive a car, vote, join the armed forces, or buy hard liquor until you're 18, which seems more sensible to me, but maybe it's just because what I'm used to) but there is a consensus that there has to be some point prior to which minors cannot be held responsible for their actions, and can therefore not be trusted to responsibly engage in certain behaviors (such as drinking alcohol, operating a motor vehicle, etc.).

Permitting adults to carry a concealed firearm, providing it has been confirmed that there is no good reason to prohibit them from doing so, is a very different proposition from permitting minors to carry a concealed firearm. I would think this would be obvious, but evidently I'm mistaken.


Well, the SCOTUS had ruled on various occasions that government cannot be held responsible if it fails to protect you, as an individual citizen, from harm. Even when you have a court order that requires the police to intervene if they become aware that that the subject of the order is in violation, but the police fail to lift a finger anyway (see Castle Rock, CO v. Gonzales).

Moreover, as far as the law is concerned, defending yourself against unlawful violence does not constitute "taking matters into your own hands." The law permits you to employ force to protect yourself or others. Ms Katz was not seeking permission to pre-emptively seek out and kill her husband lest he try to attack her; she wanted to be able to defend herself against him in the event that he came looking for her, intent on inflicting unlawful harm on her, in a location where ordinarily she would not be allowed to carry the most reliably effective means of self-protection--to wit, firearms--currently in existence.

If you want to contest that firearms are the most reliably effective means of self-protection currently in existence, answer me this: why do cops, who currently have so many less-than-lethal options on their belt they need suspenders to hold them up, still carry guns?

Long guns are another matter. There are still some places in the country where highschool students may have ROTC training weapons, or hunting rifles in their vehicles in the parking lot. In fact, a school shooting was halted by a school employee and two students who ran to their cars to get their guns.

West Seattle High School used to have a rifle team.

So, ignoring all your hysteria for a second, the core question has been answered over and over. Some kids do bring weapons to school. Some are allowed, and nothing bad happens. Some do it regardless of the laws or rules, and tragedy ensues. I'd rather there be 'good guys' with guns inside the school when the shooting starts, not minutes away. I consider the teachers 'Good guys' until proven otherwise.

use the court system? Do you have any idea of how many women are dead because they depended on the court systems? What a crock! A restraining order is useless actually.
I had a restraining order against an ex once..(many years ago now)....that didn't stop him from coming around and beating on the doors and windows and scaring the children half to death.
When I called the police they said..sorry..we have to actually CATCH HIM IN THE ACT of breaking the order..which of course never happened.
He was threatening the boys (ages 7 & 8 at the time and not his sons either...) that he was going to climb into a window while they were sleeping and shoot them in the head with a shotgun!
We were all terrified of him.
What finally did stop him at the time was I bought a gun and showed it to him after he came around and broke a window.....and I promised I would use it the next time he kicked the door down....or tried to beat the crap out of me or the kids again....and I meant it. That was the end of his abuse.
Women have the right to protect themselves..and any place that strips them of that right had better be ready to have the pants sued off them.
What will they do? Tell the dead woman how frikking sorry they are that they let him kill her? sheesh..you people that want to take guns away need to have a dose of reality and the reality is..there are crazy people out there that will kill you for fun or for a quarter and you better be able to protect yourself and your family.
If you really think it is so frickin safe to be unarmed in America today...please go right ahead and list your name and address and a note that you are unarmed right here and right now. I know of a few thugs and thieves that would LOVE that list.
If you are not willing to list your name and address and advertise the fact that you are unarmed...then shut the fuck up.

Exactly!

should also be held liable for the safety of people who enter it.

Is the government held liable for the safety of its people?

If the government leaves the responsibility of safety with the individual, why can't schools, malls, etc?

That's why we have municipal police and fire forces. :eyes:

So which police officers/politicians/government officials were prosecuted for failing to protect students at Columbine back in the 90s?

The police were called to an event that was already unfolding, unanticipated and unprecidented in the history of US edcuation. There was no fault on any municipal body for this event. The police were called to respond to violence, to thwart further violence and protect people who had not been injured or killed. You'd condemn them for not having ESP and knowing Klibold and Harris were going on a shoot-em-up spree. Ridiculous argument!

I agree with the Supreme Court: you are responsible for your own protection. As a corollary to that, if some entity deprives me of the ability to protect myself, then they should assume the responsibility for that protection.
If the school says she can't bring a gun to school, fine--then they'd better make damn sure that they don't allow someone to injure her.

I'll keep my personal tools for self-defense, thanks you very much.

her. The police were not liable. By all means, do a little research. Your position is so full of holes, it pretty much doesn't exist.

As for protecting individuals, YOYO.

Warren v. District of Columbia: "fundamental principle of American law that a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any individual citizen."

DeShaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services: "Constitutional duties of care and protection only exist as to certain individuals, such as incarcerated prisoners, involuntarily committed mental patients and others restrained against their will and therefore unable to protect themselves. The affirmative duty to protect arises not from the State's knowledge of the individual's predicament or from its expressions of intent to help him, but from the limitation which it has imposed on his freedom to act on his own behalf."

Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Department: In this particular case, Ms. Balistreri was beaten and harassed by her estranged husband whom she had a restraining order against. The police failed to protect her but were found to be under no accountability for her protection as she was not in direct police custody.

In not so many words, the public sector is NOT responsible for idividual safety/defense. This is not even in question as evidence fully supports. Given that REAL WORLD fact, when a private (or public) party prohibits one from carrying a firearm for defense/protection and simultaneously is under NO responsibility to respond to crime or provide protection... then people are left defenseless by mandate of the controlling party. Whomever strips citizens of the right to protect themselves should in turn be accountable for that protection (or lack thereof).

OneTenthOfOnePercent esq.

I believe they are NOT obligated to protect you at all. You might want to do some research before posting such myths.

The police are NOT there for your personal protection or safety. They are simply there to maintain the general order and for enforcement of the law, which almost always occurs AFTER a crime has been committed. There have been more than one Supreme Court rulings on this issue. So your argument has ZERO validity in reality. Maybe instead of rolling your eyes so much you should use them to actually study the issues at hand.

Right?

Go ahead, look it up.


Government is responsible for the safety of it's people AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA AAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAA

That's why GEORGE BUSH IS IN JAIL for the failures at New Orleans during hurricane Katrina, right?

:wow:

No guns = Zero guns. A no gun policy at a school means no one, not teachers, not even police-student liaisons carry guns.

Except perhaps creating a target of opportunity for a wannabe mass murderer.

An adult in fear of their lives should be able to have a gun no matter where they are as long as they have applied for the license.
If someone comes gunning for her she should also be able to protect the children as well.
Sorry but I will be damned before I would let anyone take my gun away if I had a whacko after me.
If just one of the teachers had been armed at Columbine a lot of kids might have been alive today.

first you state that police are responsible for individual's protection...you couldn't be more wrong

Yes, the government is responsible for the safety of its people. Updated at 11:53 AM

That's why we have municipal police and fire forces. :eyes:


Next you state this completely idiotic statement:

That's not a "no gun policy."

No guns = Zero guns. A no gun policy at a school means no one, not teachers, not even police-student liaisons carry guns.

Have you really never heard the term "gun free zone"?? Really?? You don't understand that police and certain security are exempted from these zones?? Please...

You do realize that 43 states have 'shall issue' concealed carry licenses which allow licensed people to carry a concealed firearm almost anyplace? That time after time these mass shootings occur in places deemed off limits to concealed carry? That concealed carry licensees have been proven time and again to be even more law abiding than even law enforcement?

I can understand how you might be sooooo wrong about all of these things what with .orgs like Brady and VPC circulating these ideas and certain agenda driven politicians implying just these same lies. If you are open minded and willing to actually study this issue I believe you may be surprised what the truth really is.

So it's not a 'no gun policy' right?

Fort hood has the same level of firearm possession. Military and civilian police carry firearms, only.

Training firearms are modified so they can fire blanks, and no projectiles. That's the red metal cage on the end of the barrel.

Read up on the subject.

Well that policy works real great... at least for the terrorist anyway.

But your logic means that everyone not carrying a gun is "an easy target" so we must arm everyone.

But your logic means that everyone not carrying a gun is "an easy target" so we must arm everyone.

That's a completely ridiculous interpretation of what I have written here.

My position is that people who are not legally disqualified from being armed, have passed their state's objective requirements for getting a concealed weapons permit, are willing and able to assume the huge responsibility that goes with being armed, and want to be armed, should be armed.

Clue: The victims that were shot, were unarmed. The people in the building and the surrounding campus were unarmed.

Firearms are kept under lock and key, and issued only when the mission requires it. That means, the only armed people in a military base 24x7 are: guard duty, military police, civilian police. If the shooter penetrates that outer layer of defenses (guards) without raising suspicion, the shooter will have a field day inside.

It's like relying on perimeter security, like a firewall to protect a corporate network's data. It's not enough. Once someone gets through that perimeter, they are home free if you don't have security measures INSIDE the network.

Their right to carry a gun shouldn't take precedence over my child's right to be safe from their juvenile power fantasies.

Don't misunderstand. I like guns. I also respect them enough to like reasonable restrictions.

To some degree, we also charge teachers with the safety of those children. She wants the tools to ensure that safety.

She also has a problem: an abusive husband. Which means, the children in her care are at somewhat higher risk than most students, if he snaps and attacks the school. Should we remove her from her job, because she's a victim, to enhance the security of the children?

What a ridiculously dumb idea.

if teachers are allowed to carry weapons.

Besides, there are school police who are authorized to carry weapons. Of course this dumbass was "worried" about her ex, or at least that was her excuse.

I have never heard of such a stupid idea as for teachers to carry concealed weapons, just so some students can get hold of them and create mayhem.

They just say they don't tolerate weapons.

constitution. Every human has a right to carry guns anywhere they want any time they want. There are NO restrictions on this in the constitution. AK 47s, bazookas, all legal for kids. After all killing people using guns is "righteous" according to what I read on DU.

Have a nice day :-)

Msongs

No state issues concealed weapons permits to anyone under age 21.

AK 47s, bazookas, all legal for kids.

The federal government has regulated weapons of war using its power to regulate interstate commerce. That took effect in 1934.

Your post is nonsensical. You should read up on the subject before commenting on it.

Teachers are role models, by the way. It's not consistent to preach against violence in the schools yet allow teachers to carry weapons, weapons which can be stolen by kids and create problems.

There is a huge liability issue here as well.

The students didn't need to know she had one, and if it was properly concealed they would not have known.

Not that there is anything wrong with lawfully carrying a concealed weapon for self-defense.

...weapons which can be stolen by kids and create problems.

That's a horseshit argument. A properly concealed weapon will not get stolen by kids or by anyone else. Millions of people carry them in public every day without having them stolen.

There is a huge liability issue here as well.

Yes, the school should be held liable for any harm that comes to the teacher as a result of denying her the right to carry a licensed weapon.

:shrug:

And why not allow weapons of war? It's a well-regulated militia, after all. Hell, the National Guard gets fighter planes. Just ask W.

It's funny how you allow just enough sane restrictions on the Second Amendment to make it plausible, but not any that would keep you from buying as many handguns as you want and carrying them wherever you please.

And why not allow weapons of war? It's a well-regulated militia, after all. Hell, the National Guard gets fighter planes.

Weapons of war (machine guns, grenades, etc.) have been regulated since 1934. I suggest that you read up on the National Firearms Act so you don't come off as ignorant of the subject.

Possession of airplanes is not regulated. Their use is regulated.

It's funny how you allow just enough sane restrictions on the Second Amendment to make it plausible, but not any that would keep you from buying as many handguns as you want and carrying them wherever you please.

States have the power to regulate the manner in which handguns may be used in public. I don't have a problem with that. As for the number of guns you buy, restricting that would serve no useful purpose.

I have no problem in principle with frightened people buying one or two dangerous weapons to protect themselves against imagined threats. What is definitely a problem for society is people building arsenals.

It's a problem in a few ways. 1) It allows these "Matrix"-style attacks on workplaces where people show up carrying multiple weapons and large magazines. 2) It builds a general demand for guns above and beyond reasonable lawful uses, thus providing a supply channel for the illegal market. 3) It provides an incentive for gun manufacturers and their lobbyists to promote gun ownership for its own sake -- not for protection, but just because guns are cool.

Weapons of war (machine guns, grenades, etc.) have been regulated since 1934. I suggest that you read up on the National Firearms Act so you don't come off as ignorant of the subject.

Yes, let's start throwing around the patented gungeon non-insult insults. Let's see: I suggest you learn basic logic so you don't come off as a bumbling fool. What? I didn't say you were a bumbling fool -- I just suggested how you could avoid it in the future. I'm just looking out for your best interests.

Now can we resume the discussion?

If you allow that the National Firearms Act is constitutional, then why couldn't a restriction on other deadly weapons be constitutional? Why couldn't we restrict the number and type of other weapons using the same rationale? You can have a hunting weapon, but not a sniper rifle. You can have a single 6-shot revolver but not a semi-automatic pistol or a military-style carbine. How is that less constitutional?

It's a problem in a few ways. 1) It allows these "Matrix"-style attacks on workplaces where people show up carrying multiple weapons and large magazines.

I think you are projecting what you are afraid you might to if you had multiple weapons and large magazines. I have no such urges, nor does anyone I know personally.

2) It builds a general demand for guns above and beyond reasonable lawful uses, thus providing a supply channel for the illegal market.

The firearms I collect are mostly curios and relics, made more than 50 years ago and mostly in other countries. I have very few that were manufactured recently, so my collecting them has no impact on the general demand for guns or the marketing opportunities for US or foreign manufacturers of new ones.

3) It provides an incentive for gun manufacturers and their lobbyists to promote gun ownership for its own sake -- not for protection, but just because guns are cool.

Whether or not they are cool is a matter of personal opinion. I happen to like them because I find them to be inherently interesting examples of some of the best materials and manufacturing techniques available at whatever time they were made. They also reflect some very clever engineering innovations. If you don't like them, that's fine with me, but I cannot allow you to spew ridiculous ideas like you have here without responding.

If you allow that the National Firearms Act is constitutional, then why couldn't a restriction on other deadly weapons be constitutional? Why couldn't we restrict the number and type of other weapons using the same rationale?

I think the line was drawn correctly in 1934 and there is no reason to move it either direction.

You can have a hunting weapon, but not a sniper rifle.

How can you tell the difference between a hunting weapon and a sniper rifle? They function exactly the same way.

You can have a single 6-shot revolver but not a semi-automatic pistol or a military-style carbine. How is that less constitutional?

It's not a matter of constitutionality for me. I object to restrictive laws that have no foreseeable benefit. Choices are inherently good. Taking choices away without some tangible benefit is inherently bad.

And require the guns to remain unloaded.



Don't be intentionally retarded. We just had such a shooting in the New York immigration center.




Do you personally know any home invaders? Rapists? Serial killers? Maybe we should just open our prisons and shut down the police force because no one you know is a criminal.

Logic, slackmaster. Logic. I know it's hard, but you really need to make a minimal effort here.

That is no secret here. It allows me to acquire and dispose of curios and relics through interstate commerce.

And require the guns to remain unloaded.

Neither the federal governments nor the states have the power to impose such a requirement on how I store my firearms.

We just had such a shooting in the New York immigration center.

Another example of a phony gun-free safety zone providing a target of opportunity for a deranged lunatic.

Which was: These types of attacks actually DO occur. Pretending they don't or making snotty comments to those who point it out will not change simple truth.

Thanks in advance.

I think you are projecting what you are afraid you might to if you had multiple weapons and large magazines. I have no such urges, nor does anyone I know personally.

So, exactly what point were you trying to make here? Your choices are a) asserting that your personal experience discounts proven reality (poor logic); b) going for an easy insult without regard to logic or common sense (bad manners); c) making something up just to appear to stay in the debate (intellectual dishonesty); or d) your sister broke your password and posted this to make you look silly (mission accomplished).

I don't know any wannabe mass murders personally != There is no such thing as a mass murderer

So, exactly what point were you trying to make here?

Mass murderers are extremely rare individuals, and you haven't proposed anything that would prevent mass murders from happening.

And rendering people defenseless DOESN'T WORK.


Again with the "WOOOOOSH" I'm guessing.

Seriously, when you get your information about guns from the Matrix, it's no wonder you come off sounding wacky.

Ft. Hood? 2 guns
VT? 2 guns
Binghamton? 2 guns
Luby's? 2 guns
LA Fitness center? 3 guns (2 used)
Pittsburgh? 3 guns (only one used at a time)

How exactly is that distinction made? Considering that our military uses the same gun with a different stock. Surely you're not going down the path of the AWB again, where guns are good / bad based on appearance?

I'm glad we don't have a Department of Need to determine what people should and shouldn't have.

Maybe you could loan me your copy after you unstick the pages.

On second thought, I'll buy my own.

...but somehow you're trying to make that admission dismissive of the guy you're arguing with?

Reading comprehension. There are several fine night courses available.

...You can have a hunting weapon, but not a sniper rifle. You can have a single 6-shot revolver but not a semi-automatic pistol or a military-style carbine.

How could such a policy not entail banning things?

Unless you're quoting out of context to be intentionally dishonest... Sorry, we don't have a course for that.

Full quote:
If you allow that the National Firearms Act is constitutional, then why couldn't a restriction on other deadly weapons be constitutional? Why couldn't we restrict the number and type of other weapons using the same rationale? You can have a hunting weapon, but not a sniper rifle. You can have a single 6-shot revolver but not a semi-automatic pistol or a military-style carbine. How is that less constitutional?

I asked why such a ban would be unconstitutional -- a question you have been unable to answer. Do you need me to take you through the quote word-by-word?

Disingenuous, much?

Fine, replace "you want to ban" with "you're discussing banning".

Can we try to be adult here?

And now you're complaining that we're "discussing" banning? I wasn't even doing that. I was asking a question regarding the poster's opinion on the constitutionality of certain bans.

Really, it's embarrassing to have to spell this out to allegedly educated adults.

And when it was pointed out to you that the difference existed only in your mind, you made fun of the person trying to educate you.

The unfortunately-named Jim Moran (D-Va) proposed such a ban a few years back in response to the DC sniper attacks. The law would have spelled out exactly what was considered a "sniper" rifle as opposed to a "hunting" rifle. Among other things, it would have banned all .50-cal rifles.

So, the difference has been proposed legislatively, not just "in my mind".

Would you like to now resume the discussion of which one of us is ignorant?

Here's the press release from the brady bunch- http://www.vpc.org/press/0405fifty.htm

But I'm sure you knew that, right? DC Shooter uses a rifle that shoots .223" sized bullet in 2" case, therefore ban rifles that shoot .510" bullets in a 6" case.

Yah, his name isn't ironic or anything.

Google: the tool that allows anyone to act as if they have actual knowledge.

Too bad you already mocked the concept of a ban on sniper rifles, revealing that you had no clue about H.R. 654 before I told you about it.

The reason I laughed at you saying that there was a magical bill out there that defined sniper rifles, the reason I asked you to define the distinction, is _because I lived in Virginia_ at the time. I _remember_ the hullabaloo over the DC Sniper (I was in Spotsylvania at the time.) Moran's bill left people scratching their heads, when other gun control advocates were talking about those "evil semi-automatic M-16's".

Just sayin'

What country do you live in?

:toast:

Your tricycle is squeaking.

a fiddy. nope. He gets a bolt action weapon based on a hunting rifle (model 70, rem 700, or other) or a M14 based semi auto. Both firing a... 308. Snipers have long used a Winchester or Remington based hunting rifle to kill people at distance.

You are ignorant here. I assure you you lack of knowledge on the topic is the equivalent of standing in church with your fly unzipped.

Whatever you do to keep the lights on and your belly full probably involves some technical language. Material Engineering, Diesel Mechanic, even drug dealers know their jobs.

Your mind is not relevant to this topic.

You seem to have an almost pornographic need to hear proper technical language about firearms. I wonder if there's a 900 number that services your particular proclivities. I really hope you can find an outlet as gun oil is probably irritating to those sensitive private areas.

Oh, and since you seem to lack the basic intellectual faculties to understand this, it doesn't take a "genius" to memorize chimp-level facts about firearms. Just a little-boy obsession and waay too much time on your hands.

"Proper technical language" would be mistaking one caliber for another, or mistaking one model of gun for another.

Creating shit out of whole cloth, though.. that's claiming that a restriction on _one caliber_ somehow means all "sniper" rifles would have been banned or even defined.

and talking about semi-floating hydraulic gungin pins and chrome reverse muffler bearings.

It's impossible to engage in any meaningful discussion on this topic, with your complete lack of knowledge about firearms. You've amply demonstrated this over and over in this thread.

Lots of crimes with those in your area?

Statistically significant portion of assaults or homicides?

Really?

Cite, please....

It's not even legal for hunting deer in this state, because it will not reliably kill such a large animal. It won't even reliably kill humans.

If he'd used a fucking .50, he would have gotten off one, maybe two shots before getting caught. It would be impossible to ignore/fail to notice him.


But no, everyone was running around looking for a white guy in a panel van, because nobody knew where the shots were coming from.

There is no precedent for it doing so. There is a reason they did not ban machine guns, short-barrelled shotguns, etc. in 1934 - Because it would not have been constitutional.

And now you've given me something interesting to think about. If it is truly unconstitutional to ban any weapon, then we have (to quote Chimpy) an issue in America.

As I see it, this leaves us with two choices:

1) A fully-open RKBA where anyone can constitutionally own any modern weapon.

or

2) A RKBA that can be regulated and restricted by federal and state governments.


I know which one I'd prefer. However, I believe that in Heller, the majority explicitly stated that such restrictions were constitutional:

To regulate interstate commerce. That power has been pushed IMO way beyond the original intent already.

Take a look some time at proposals to regulate private sales of used firearms at gun shows. They all contain some kind of concrete definition of "gun show", and a justification for why gun show activity can be regulated as interstate commerce.

Nobody in Congress has ever proposed regulating all private, intrastate sales of used ordinary firearms.

...nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.

Even there they were cautious to talk only about individual prohibitions that result from judicial decisions, and of commercial sales.

You could make an argument that the NFA regulations should be extended to all handguns or even all firearms, but I think such extensions of power would quickly reach diminishing returns in public safety or whatever the intent happens to be.

Carolyn 'Shoulder thing that goes up' / 'incendiary means heat seeking bullets' McCarthy is right there with you.. ready to ban things you don't understand. And yes, I'll quote you for completeness- "You can have a hunting weapon, but not a sniper rifle. You can have a single 6-shot revolver but not a semi-automatic pistol or a military-style carbine."

Here's the full quote:

If you allow that the National Firearms Act is constitutional, then why couldn't a restriction on other deadly weapons be constitutional? Why couldn't we restrict the number and type of other weapons using the same rationale? You can have a hunting weapon, but not a sniper rifle. You can have a single 6-shot revolver but not a semi-automatic pistol or a military-style carbine. How is that less constitutional?

I'm asking a question, not proposing a ban. But, as usual, I get the same gungeon game-playing.

So I'll ask you another question: are you daft or are you being intentionally dishonest?

If I thought you had a reasonable expectation of a serious answer, I'd tell you that the 1934 NFA was set up as a tax scheme (the crime isn't possession of a machine gun, it's possession of a machinegun without a tax stamp) because congress knew it couldn't outright ban a weapon or class of weapon.

I asked a serious question, but of course I asked it of the gungeon crowd. So, as you say, I had no "reasonable expectation of a serious answer".

Otherwise you are merely indulging in your own verbal masturbation.

"What is definitely a problem for society is people building arsenals."

That statement can only be true if you can articulate an actual problem, not the make believe ones that you list below (which I'll address separately). I doubt very highly that anything close to a significant portion of murders in the US are committed by people who collect guns (which is what you seem to call an "arsenal").

"It's a problem in a few ways. 1) It allows these "Matrix"-style attacks on workplaces where people show up carrying multiple weapons and large magazines. "

What percentage of murders in the US are committed by people who carry out this style of attack? If we had a year in which 100 people were killed in mass shootings (which I don't think we have), then those shootings represent well under 1% of the murders in the US. Given that most of the people who commit mass murder seem to be willing to break the law, what would stop them from obtaining extra guns and magazines illegally? If limiting the number of weapons you can own is not going to prevent crime, why make criminals out of shooting enthusiasts who have a lot of guns?

"2) It builds a general demand for guns above and beyond reasonable lawful uses, thus providing a supply channel for the illegal market."

This doesn't even make sense. If I have 50 rifles in my house, how am I a supply channel for the illegal market? I don't sell firearms, I collect them. Criminals are going to find a way to get guns regardless of what laws you pass, unless you want to ban all firearms, which clearly isn't constitutional.

"3) It provides an incentive for gun manufacturers and their lobbyists to promote gun ownership for its own sake -- not for protection, but just because guns are cool."

I'm not sure what you are saying here. What's wrong with gun ownership for its own sake?

"You can have a hunting weapon, but not a sniper rifle."

What do you think is the difference between a hunting weapon and a sniper rifle? I'd challenge you to come up with a physical characteristic of a sniper rifle that is not commonly found on deer rifles.

You don't know the first damn thing about what you're typing. My best deer rifle was used to kill germans in WWII. The sights adjust out to 900 yards. Not just that model, that specific rifle. You can decode it's history from the armorers marks stamped into it.

Humans are MUCH easier to kill than large game like Deer. There is no such thing as a 'deer rifle' that cannot be used as a 'sniper rifle'.

Also, the supreme court has ruled on more than one occasion, we have a constitutional right to military weapons, NOT 'hunting weapons'. I think the decision was somewhat flawed, because the weapon WAS in use by the military, but see United States vs. Miller.

Which neighborhood? The gungeon? The realm of actual facts, and the destruction of hyperbole?

Were those good spirits I heard?

Bit difficult for people to stay out of your neighborhood if we don't know which state (let alone city) your neighborhood is in, isn't it? I mean, if you're going to get all huffy...

Just one? Any at all?

The fort hood shooter didn't apparently use his second pistol. The VT shooter reloaded multiple times. I'm hard pressed to think of ANY incident where the shooter came loaded with multiple weapons, and no reloads.

The gunman had five handguns, one of which was a revolver, and two spare mags. He was actually overpowered while he was switching guns (after emptying the full-cap magazine in the first), not while he was reloading.

Oh yeah, Monash University is in Melbourne, Australia. This was the mass shooting that certain Australians claim didn't happen after the 1996 National Firearms Agreement ("only" two of the seven victims died).

Damn near every mass shooting that has taken place has been carried out with one or two firearms, even when the shooter brought more along. Charles Whitman had four rifles, three handguns and a swaed-off shotgun with him in the University of Texas tower shootings, but he only used a Remington 700 hunting rifle to do all the shooting. Albert Petrosky brought two rifles (one of which a LAR Grizzly .50-cal) and two handguns to the Albertson's in Lakewood, CO where he murdered his estranged wife, her manager and a sheriff's deputy, but he only used one rifle (not the .50-cal either). And Buford Furrow, the while supremacist POS who committed the North Valley Jewish Community Center shooting in 1999 had five semi-auto long guns and two handguns in his van, but he only used one weapon (a Chinese semi-auto-only Uzi knockoff) in the community center, and one of the handguns to subsequently shoot mail carrier Joseph Ileto.

It simply doesn't take a lot of firearms to commit a mass shooting. All you really need is one primary weapon, maybe a backup pistol, and enough ammo to do whatever it is you're intent on doing.

Now, I personally own a variety of handguns, and by "variety" I mean that they're in various calibers, and with various operating mechanisms. I have a couple of striker-fired .40-cals, a single-action .22 and .45 1911, and a DA/SA 9mm with a rotating barrel locking system, which is an unusual design. I don't own any revolvers because I'm left-handed, and there are very few double-action revolvers (and no good ones) that can be readily operated left-handed (the cylinder latch is on the wrong side, the cylinder swings out the wrong side, etc.). I might buy some single-action ones on the Colt 1873 design (like the Ruger Single Six) for target shooting, but there's no revolver that satisfies my requirements for a defensive weapon.

Does my owning a variety of handguns serve a useful purpose? No. Neither does a coin or stamp collection, an aquarium with a variety of fish, or multiple cats or dogs. And a person who owns multiple firearms is, all other things being equal, no more dangerous than a person with one or two.

am I twice as dangerous as if I only owned one? Or four times? Is the progression arithmatic or geometric? Or do some other factors come into play? Type of gun? Color? Size of magazine? Is my .54 caliber, single-shot muzzle-loader more or less dangerous than my 10-round, bolt action, .22 caliber rifle? Does the black tactical stock on my AR make it more or less dangerous than my 91/30 Mosin-Nagant with the 10x scope? Is my 1911 more dangerous in my SERPA retention holster open carried, or in the leather IWB holster under my shirt? (I can tell you which is more physically comfortable to me, but it'd make your blood pressure spike.) Does the 24" sound suppressor on my Mini 30 make it more or less dangerous to the public?

Inquiring minds want to know.

Everyone else gets SAWS, bazookas, M16s, etc.

:cry:

/:sarcasm:

South Medford High School is only a couple of blocks from the Jackson County Sheriff's Department, the county jail, and the Medford Police Department. (It still exists, but a new high school is being built off of Columbus Avenue, I believe.)

This dumb teacher didn't need to carry a gun.

have to do with being allowed to carry a weapon for personal protection?

You don't take the goddamned law into your hands, first of all. There are POLICE everywhere in case she "did" need help.

You don't risk the lives of your students because of your personal problems. You have restraining orders, police, and other methods at your disposal WITHOUT RISKING THE LIVES OF YOUR STUDENTS by carrying a gun, which students could get hold of and use. Risking the lives of your students means putting the school district at risk for major lawsuits.

If you can't see the obvious, then there is no point explaining it to you.

by carrying concealed. I think it's a bunch of B.S., but I understand the argument made.

Let's say that the teacher is not armed, and her ex-husband, or a student in the school, burst into her classroom with a knife, or a gun, or even a baseball bat. This ex-husband (or student) goes after the teacher because of the messy divorce (or a bad grade). What happens then?

Are you going to call the police, and let this woman or the other students take their beating, while waiting for the police to arrive? And the police are not just going to come in guns blazing, either. They will have to organize outside first, assess the situation, figure out if this is a hostage situation, how many perpetrators there may be, etc.

However, if this woman is armed, she at least has a chance of protecting herself and/or her fellow students from her ex-husband (or the disgruntled student).

The husband never attacked her at school since the restraining order expired, so this proves she is full of shit.

That makes your argument so much more persuasive...

"He hasn't attacked her yet, so that means he's never going to."

The rational of those who hate seeing self-reliant people taking responsibility for their own safety.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observer_effect_(psychology)

It doesn't just apply to physics. "Reactivity is a phenomenon that occurs when individuals alter their performance or behavior due to the awareness that they are being observed."

If this hadn't become a national media issue, and her desire to carry a handgun get dragged into late night news coverage, how do you know things would still have unfolded as they have?

Both on the points that Ms Katz is "full of shit," and that there is no legitimate reason to carry a weapon on school grounds?

And FYI, using force--including lethal force--in defense of one's own life or that of others is not "taking the law into your own hands." And I can't say I've ever heard of a someone having his or her weapon stolen from a concealed holster, but do feel free to provide some examples. It's make your assertion that there a risk to the students a lot more plausible.

I know what I am talking about. Don't hand me bullshit court cases to support your gun fanaticism.

If so, take it up with the SCOTUS.

Proximity to a cop != obligation for them to respond / 'save you'.

The woman is a whackjob.

MULTIPLE cases are out there reinforcing this fact.
Not just one or two "bullshit cases" either...

A shooter could enter a school and start blasting away while every single person there is on a cell phone with a 911 dispatcher. If the police dont respond for whatever reason - tough shit. Not thier problem or liability (legally) and you'd no recourse against that. Is that a reaslistic scenario? ... probably not, police would be on the scene ASAP realistically. But that does not change the fact they are ultimately NOT responsible for anyone's well being.

"take the goddamned law into your hands".

Self defense is legal everywhere.

And the law is enforceable by anyone when done appropriatly.



Ink on paper has failed to stop nut-jobs many times.

A legally carried firearm is not a risk to anyone but a criminal.

"If you can't see the obvious, then there is no point explaining it to you." Ahem.

First of all, I live a block away from the police station in my area, and we're a rural area, so not much going on. You know how long it took for the police to respond to what they thought was a domestic violence incident in my area? over 30 minutes. Proximity to a police station does NOT equate to fast response times.

The police are everywhere in case she needs help? Unless there's one IN THE ROOM WITH HER when she needs help, then they are next to useless. Seconds count in situations like that, and the police are always at least minutes away.

YOU DON'T EVER, EVER, EVER CARRY WEAPONS TO SCHOOL. In plain English. Period.

At my school, we were not allowed to have real KNIVES in my classroom, which was life skills. We had to use plastic ones.

School districts don't mince words about weapons. The rules apply to teachers as well as students, and for good reason.

Some terrified individual calls the police and they arrive. Perhaps as much as an hour or so later they make entry to the building. By that time a bunch of people have been shot. The shooter may have taken his own life.

If a well qualified individual or several were inside the building and were armed they could respond quicker than the police and possibly save lives.

Impossible?



If the assistant principal had the firearm concealed on his body or locked in his office, he would have been able to respond faster. Perhaps he could have stopped the shooter faster and saved lives.

Lies? Point out a lie. Do it. POINT OUT ONE FUCKING LIE!

break the rules and walk into 'your school'? You make accusations of lies yet produce exactly NONE...not one single example..

You are a closed minded, purveyor of dishonesty...too bad for your students that you have no ability to understand simple truths..

I am sure you will not respond to any of the absolute facts dismissing your sill assertions in this thread since it was moved to the guns forum....like every other anti gun zealot dream weaver you can't argue with people who actually are educated in this issue because your arguments are incorrect at best and lies more probably..

OH MY GOD THE BLOOD FLOWING IN THE STREETS

Very few problems there, I might point out.

Of course, I could use your argument, that since nothing bad has happened, nothing bad will happen. But I'm not retarded.

..... then force post over to the Gun forum.

about guns?

They get upset with a poster who LIVED in the area, who HAS a been a teacher, who KNOWS what the risk is, but they use bullshit court cases and stupid arguments about restraining orders, which if the ex had been a threat, the teacher would have continued to use after she couldn't have her gun. She's still alive, and with the help of a gun nut organization, wants to appeal the decision.

It's pretty obvious this woman is a headcase.

As you seem to be more than willing to ignore them to support YOUR fanatical hatred of the ability for people to defend themselves.

(Shh... they think they're being clever) :rofl:

You snark whenever the gungeoneers aren't 'fast enough' for you..

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=232768#232817
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=225643#225660
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=210535#210542
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=239856#240109

But at the same time you think we want to force it to the Gun forum?

Most folks in the gungeon I know would rather discuss this issue with a larger audience, and bemoan the fact that a topical thread gets shuttled to the guns forum. Posters who start threads elsewhere complain when their threads get moved to the guns forum. (Usually because the responses change from mindless head nodding, cheap shots, and '+1 ka-jillion!' to actual discussion.)

If we're happy to discuss these topics in GD, LBN, GD:P, & EOA, why would you think we want them moved to the gungeon?

eta:formatting

I'm glad. Teachers have no business carrying any weapons to school.

efficient tools for defnse of oneself and their students?

Logic?

The irony of course is that you're probably right. Ms. Katz will probably be just fine and she is probably overracting.

If enough people display the same attitude you have shown in this thread, she will get the victory that you fear.

The last thing we need is firearms in schools. They certainly don't contribute to the possibility of a teachable moment. A far more effective barrier to education is a reactionary, emotional response to a complex problem. Those are a much greater danger to the possibility of a teachable moment for children and adults.

I am sure it give a warm feeling in the minds of those that wish to do harm to defenseless groups of people. Terrorists like Nidal Hasan or the likes can run into a school or similar place (gun free zone) which isn't actually gun free when they are there now is it??? It does make me wonder what is worse, Having someone I trust with a gun or having someone I don't know/trust with a gun......Hmmmm... let me think about that for a second.......OF course I would want the person I trust to have the means to protect my child!!!!

I have two grandchildren in high school. If some nut came into the school with the intention of killing those inside, I would prefer a teacher or member of the school staff had access to a firearm.

If the shooter knew that some people were armed inside the school, he might decide not to carry out his attack.

Either way, my grandsons have a better chance of survival.

Why do the people in GD get so upset when guns are the topic?

And students are kids.

a) Assume responsibility or iliability for her protection (or lack thereof)
b) Allow qualified faculty to leave any guns secured/locked in the faculty parking lot.

Both A and B keep guns out of schools per the schools wishes
Both A and B allow teacher protection during and (if so inclined) after work.
Win-win situation.

This is the core of your argument?

"Kids aren't allowed to carry weapons to school, so why should teachers?"

Kids aren't old enough to possess handguns, per federal law, PERIOD. So, that would be 'why'. Teachers are, ostensibly, adults.


Out of curiousity, do you trust your children's minds to a teacher, but not their physical safety? If I can't trust a teacher to ensure my child's physical safety, I sure as fuck don't want that teacher messing with his mind.

Your reasoning for denying our children effective safety in the classroom is well founded and grounded in reality.

:sarcasm: