|
Post by Big Lin on Jan 21, 2009 19:31:47 GMT
There are plenty of teachers who are crazy enough to do that.
Wasn't one of the 7/7 bombers a teacher?
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Jan 22, 2009 14:16:47 GMT
Unless of course a teacher goes bananas and starts shooting. This may well be just a matter of time. not likely, especially in texas
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 23, 2009 6:07:38 GMT
Nevertheless, a gun in no use at all against an armed lunatic in the middle of a classroom or a playground hell-bent on massacring everyone in sight. I lived near Hungerford when a (licensed) gunman went wild in the town centre, and have a good idea of the difficulties faced by trained marksman. The last thing they want to do is hit an innocent victim, so a teacher has no chance, even if target practice becomes a compulsory part of the training.
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Jan 23, 2009 12:19:44 GMT
Nevertheless, a gun in no use at all against an armed lunatic in the middle of a classroom or a playground hell-bent on massacring everyone in sight. I lived near Hungerford when a (licensed) gunman went wild in the town centre, and have a good idea of the difficulties faced by trained marksman. The last thing they want to do is hit an innocent victim, so a teacher has no chance, even if target practice becomes a compulsory part of the training. no! it's true that it would be difficult to keep anyone at all from being shot, but, it would prevent many. just as in the case of the church in colorado, the clown managed to kill a couple, but the chick with a gun prevented him from killing thirty, forty, or fifty. if people had been armed at virginia tech, two or three would have been killed, but the gunman could have been taken out before he murdered thirty. it is pretty easy to make the distinction between innocent people and a shooter.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 23, 2009 17:19:16 GMT
Yes, of course it easy to make the distinction. But if the gunman is in a crowd and moves fast there is always likely to be someone between him and the armed response.
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Jan 23, 2009 18:43:40 GMT
Yes, of course it easy to make the distinction. But if the gunman is in a crowd and moves fast there is always likely to be someone between him and the armed response. there are not many gunman who move fast. firing an automatic rifle is not as easy as it looks on tv, and you don't fire it, with the intention of hitting anything, while you are running. in a mall or such setting, it does become more difficult simply because of the number of people there. in school shootings for example, the victims are usually spread out over a considerable area. there would be more than enough time, particularly in cases such as virginia tech
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 23, 2009 21:47:16 GMT
Having seen a documentary about the Hungerford massacre, I can only disagree. Police had no real idea of where the gunman was going - and in between firing he moved very fast indeed - so were unable to direct people out of his path.
Shoot and miss, and you run a real risk of hitting an innocent victim. The bullet could go a long way - through a window, into a moving car, or ricochet. It is not a burden we should lightly place upon teachers, or any other civilian.
Better to limit the supply of guns, in my opinion.
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Jan 24, 2009 13:07:35 GMT
Having seen a documentary about the Hungerford massacre, I can only disagree. Police had no real idea of where the gunman was going - and in between firing he moved very fast indeed - so were unable to direct people out of his path. Shoot and miss, and you run a real risk of hitting an innocent victim. The bullet could go a long way - through a window, into a moving car, or ricochet. It is not a burden we should lightly place upon teachers, or any other civilian. Better to limit the supply of guns, in my opinion. which is an impossibility. britain's gun ban works so well that five teenage boys can go out and murder an eleven year old boy. yep, banning guns works so well. nonetheless, as i said, the u.s. is a totally different situation from any other country in the world. even if a gun ban did work somewhere else, which it hasn't, it never would in the u.s.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 25, 2009 9:20:23 GMT
Jumbo - for once I have to agree. We cannot eliminate guns, they will always be smuggled somehow. That doesn't mean we should go around licensing them to everyone without a criminal record or mental health history, which is more or less what happened in the past.
Parts of Britain seem terrifying places to live. Nevertheless, the idea of gun ownership becoming common in my sleepy corner of England would be totally contrary to our culture. There isn't much gun crime, either. Since I've lived here I can think of a couple of incidents - police shot a man who turned out to be unarmed, and there was a drive-by shooting about 15 miles away.
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Jan 25, 2009 13:25:05 GMT
Jumbo - for once I have to agree. We cannot eliminate guns, they will always be smuggled somehow. That doesn't mean we should go around licensing them to everyone without a criminal record or mental health history, which is more or less what happened in the past. Parts of Britain seem terrifying places to live. Nevertheless, the idea of gun ownership becoming common in my sleepy corner of England would be totally contrary to our culture. There isn't much gun crime, either. Since I've lived here I can think of a couple of incidents - police shot a man who turned out to be unarmed, and there was a drive-by shooting about 15 miles away. you obviously don't live in downtown london, or in the estates. once again though, if you lived in south central los angeles, chicago, washington dc, or any other metropolitian area of the u.s., you would hear gunshots regularly, NONE coming from legal guns. the thing is, just as when the temperance movement succeeded in banning alcohol throughout the country, the price of alcohol went up, but consumption certainly never went down
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 25, 2009 16:55:03 GMT
The recent crime figures show that gun crime has gone down and knife crime has gone up. Two theories have been put forward for that; a knife is easy to snatch from a kitchen, and is less traceable than a gun.
Make what you like of it!
But no, I don't live on an inner city estate, and am very grateful for it.
|
|
|
Post by Big Lin on Jan 25, 2009 17:40:14 GMT
You don't have to LIVE on an inner city estate to be plagued by the minority of inhabitants of those places who DO.
A tiny minority of estate dwellers are responsible for almost all the crime in South London (where I live though I'm trying to escape to Yorkshire later on this year.) I get sick of all the violence and as a mum with young kids I worry about their future.
Knives are of course easier to get than any other kind of weapon but also most people who carry blades do it for show and swagger more than for blow.
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Jan 25, 2009 17:43:29 GMT
You don't have to LIVE on an inner city estate to be plagued by the minority of inhabitants of those places who DO. A tiny minority of estate dwellers are responsible for almost all the crime in South London (where I live though I'm trying to escape to Yorkshire later on this year.) I get sick of all the violence and as a mum with young kids I worry about their future. Knives are of course easier to get than any other kind of weapon but also most people who carry blades do it for show and swagger more than for blow. that's only partially true. as i recall, knife murders in london have risen exponentially every year for a while.
|
|