NRA: Guns in Schools Would Protect Students

[reelbad]

I could see where the school security might lead to a program for our returning war vets of Iraq and Afganistan who are having trouble locating other jobs upon their return. perhaps the current administration would want to allocate the funding for the cities that can't afford to hire a full time law enforcement to do the job. I personaly would prefer this to arming teachers unless they had law enforcement or military background. Like JT said, we have had armed deputies in the Leon Co. schools for a long time. Again, I think that all of the ideas that are coming forward need to be looked at real hard before mistakes are made that can't be undone. God bless our children. God bless the USA.

[Dubble Trubble]

On another forum this was being discussed, and these are some very interesting articles and videos about the misinformation out there.


What is an Assault Rifle?

Semi - vs Full auto

Good video


Would Magazine limits make a difference?

Rifle

Pistol


Dubble

[Juan]

Not taking sides here guys..just stirring the pot...

I'm retired military, pro gun and always have been but the loss of those kids hit home for me and it has me reconsidering my stance on gun control..
I don't belive there is a solid solution one way or the other but something has to be done to stop the carnage and a ban on assault weapons and clips that hold more than 10 rounds "might" be it. ????
At this point I think I could support a ban on any future sales of assault weapons as long as the current owners of so called assault weapons were grandfathered in without issue and I don't think that restrictions on sales of magazines that hold more than 10 rounds would be that much of an issue for those who have weapons that fire multiple rounds since it doesn't take long to reload a clip and why do you need a clip that holds 30 rounds or more anyway? It would take a second or two longer for a wacko on a shooting spree to reload and continue killing... that second or two might be the time it takes for a responder to take him or her out or mean one less person died IMO.

Would you please define "assault weapon"?

Dubble

If there is a definition, I don't know what it is but personally, I'd call an assault weapon any weapon that is capable of firing a given number of rounds at a sustained rate of ______rounds per second...

[Rhettley]

I say let all the people who are for gun control put those "GUN FREE ZONE- NO WEAPONS ALLOWED" signs in the front yard of their house to keep the criminals and crazies from robbing and killing them.

[Dubble Trubble]

Not taking sides here guys..just stirring the pot...

I'm retired military, pro gun and always have been but the loss of those kids hit home for me and it has me reconsidering my stance on gun control..
I don't belive there is a solid solution one way or the other but something has to be done to stop the carnage and a ban on assault weapons and clips that hold more than 10 rounds "might" be it. ????
At this point I think I could support a ban on any future sales of assault weapons as long as the current owners of so called assault weapons were grandfathered in without issue and I don't think that restrictions on sales of magazines that hold more than 10 rounds would be that much of an issue for those who have weapons that fire multiple rounds since it doesn't take long to reload a clip and why do you need a clip that holds 30 rounds or more anyway? It would take a second or two longer for a wacko on a shooting spree to reload and continue killing... that second or two might be the time it takes for a responder to take him or her out or mean one less person died IMO.

Would you please define "assault weapon"?

Dubble

If there is a definition, I don't know what it is but personally, I'd call an assault weapon any weapon that is capable of firing a given number of rounds at a sustained rate of ______rounds per second...

So, my old 1960's .22 rifle with a TUBE magazine of 18 rounds and can fire probably 4 to 5 rounds per second is more of an assault rifle than an AK47 with a 10 round clip and a fire rate of 3 rounds per burst? Wow!

Dubble

[Jumptrout51]

Get one now.

legislator.jpg (22.75 KiB) Viewed 1899 times

[Juan]

So, my old 1960's .22 rifle with a TUBE magazine of 18 rounds and can fire probably 4 to 5 rounds per second is more of an assault rifle than an AK47 with a 10 round clip and a fire rate of 3 rounds per burst? Wow!

Dubble

Not a common sense comparison....but good point.

[Dubble Trubble]

So, my old 1960's .22 rifle with a TUBE magazine of 18 rounds and can fire probably 4 to 5 rounds per second is more of an assault rifle than an AK47 with a 10 round clip and a fire rate of 3 rounds per burst? Wow!

Dubble

Not a common sense comparison....but good point.

Hence the problem. How many law makers in Washington DC have common sense?

Dubble

[Gulf Coast]

I would not like to see more gus in schools...on the other hand something has to be done. I am "NOT FOR ANY GUN CONTROL" what so ever...none !! A gun is just a tool no differant than a hammer, knife, nail gun or machete !!! It's no differant than a car driven by someone that has abused alcohol, how many poeple have been killed by alcohol ? or was it the vehicle ? or was it the person that is not in his/her right mind ? I say ban alcohol first then talk to me bout guns. Ban those video games, ban those movies ? With all the wasted govt. spending how about a program that monitors mental illness or how about putting God back in school,don't guess there getting it at home...IDK...just my thoughts. End the end I'm sure there will be some sort of gun control while other issues are let off the hook.

[MarkM]

The last few days I've been in the woods and I hear multiple rounds going off. I don't get it. If you can't kill a little ole deer with one shot, you don't need to hunt. It's overkill. I have guns and I don't have problem with protecting yourself. But, I think there are too many fanatics out there. I don't have the answer but, why does everybody need a semi automatic assault weapon?

[Dubble Trubble]

The last few days I've been in the woods and I hear multiple rounds going off. I don't get it. If you can't kill a little ole deer with one shot, you don't need to hunt. It's overkill. I have guns and I don't have problem with protecting yourself. But, I think there are too many fanatics out there. I don't have the answer but, why does everybody need a semi automatic assault weapon?

I guess just goes back to the old saying "Wouldn't you rather have one, and not need it, that not have one, and need it?


Dubble

[Mister Mullet]

Enforce the 22,000 gun laws already on the books. Armed uniformed and plain clothes police in every school, (cheap in the long run if you just pay overtime for offduty officers). Malls, theaters and most other places where people congregate already have an indeterminate number of licensed concealed-carry citizens wandering around, so they are safe. Take semiauto, detached magazine rifles off the market (call them what you want). Hunters have been doing just fine with rifles that only hold 5 bullets for decades (Winchester Model 70s, Remington 700s, Savage, Sako, Mauser, etc.) If you can't hit it with 5 shots find another sport. Pistols are another matter. Not many people really need more than 10 rounds if you're in a defensive situation. Not TV, but real life. Granted the average pistolero can't hit shit under stress, so the extra bullets can be helpful, but high-capacity mags are just a menace. I'm just sayin.

[haliaetus]

I've been a teacher over 20 years. Seen
lots of good teachers and plenty of bad
ones. I wouldn't trust most teachers
with a paddle, let alone a gun, even the
good ones. Teaching math or English
isnt the same as defending a school
full of folks against an armed attack.
You vets should know that.

There were two armed officers at
Columbine, and not only was that school
chosen for attack, a lot of people died. You guys
watch too much TV if you think a deputy who
teaches anti-bullying classes at a school and carries
a gun is a deterrent to this lunacy.

I understand that a simple
solution sounds good, but honestly? You think that'll do
the trick? Responsible gun owners like us aren't the problem. We know
that. But let's not kid ourselves into thinking a proliferation of
of guns is a simple solution to a complex problem that many of
you have pointed out.

An officer in every school is a good idea. Some will have enough
to keep them busy dealing their populations day to day. It certainly
Wont hurt. Last time I checked, however, police officers are public sector employees, paid for
with tax dollars. Nothing is free.

Caught a beautiful red on a top water this week!

[MudDucker]

I read this thread and it saddens me greatly that there are some here who have NO clue about the 2nd amendment. The 2nd Amendment of our Constitution has NOTHING to do with hunting and NOTHING to do with weapons used for hunting. The fact that a weapon can be used for hunting does not change its classification for the 2nd Amendment. Our 2nd Amendment right has everything to do with each citizen having the RIGHT to arm himself in such a fashion as to be an effective militia to protect this country and his family from threats to his freedom, both foreign and domestic. It was conceived from the idea that every man has the right to arm himself in the same manner as the military is armed. If you were repelling an armed attack would you want the size of your magazine limited or your rate of fire? My answer is no just no, but HELL NO! Contrary to the misinformation, a US citizen can legally own an automatic weapon. In order to keep the government off of you back, you have to pay what I think is an un-Constitutional tax.

Hunting, on the other hand, is not a right, but a privilege and the types of weapons to be used has routinely been regulated.

Evil and crazy people will NEVER be deterred by the regulation of good law abiding people. To suggest otherwise is what is truly crazy.

So, either muster the votes necessary to repeal the 2nd Amendment or stay way away from my weapons, choice of weapons, magazine size, cartridge size, rate of fire, etc, etc and etc.

[ugadawg]

I understand that the 2nd amendment was designed to allow for the creation of a militia, but I see a problem with your argument. When was the last time that an organized invading force only invaded with ground troops? If America is invaded and a militia is needed, chances are that the things that will do the most destruction are planes, tanks, and ships. All of which are all but impervious to an AR-15 or any other high capacity rifle available in the US. To even begin deal with these, you need anti aircraft guns, RPGs, and grenade launchers, and a host of other large weapons that are certainly illegal in the US. who gets to decide where to draw the line and where is it drawn between what is legal and what is not legal? If we were really arming ourselves to so that we may one day create a militia, I know many people who would get guns much larger than an automatic .223 or a 7.62.