Scully Posted December 15, 2012 Report Share Posted December 15, 2012 Israel arms it teachers, to prevent the slaughter of it's children. It has found a successful way of dealing with school attacks. Indeed,when I was there the school buses also had armed guards. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lock Stock & Barrel Posted December 15, 2012 Report Share Posted December 15, 2012 (edited) Israel arms it teachers, to prevent the slaughter of it's children. It has found a successful way of dealing with school attacks. Wrong. If you think that it is only by dent of armed teachers which prevents "the slaughter of its children", then you don't know much about life in Israel. Clearly. What's to stop that now? At least if others were trained and armed the tragedy could be lessened. Apart from the fact that teachers in the US are required not to bring firearms into the classroom, can you please point to any evidence where a teacher has ever shot and killed even one of their classroom charges in the US? And training's got nothing to do with it - there is currently no evidence that the lad who went postal had any, not even a day's weapons' training, and he managed to kill, currently, 27 people. Edited December 15, 2012 by Lock Stock & Barrel Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Catweazle Posted December 15, 2012 Report Share Posted December 15, 2012 Changes to US law might make a difference to the lone lunatic who snaps and murders before suicide. Maybe the loon would just top himself if he didn't have instant access to firearms. It won't make a jot of difference to someone who plans such an outrage. One thing is for sure, Obama wants to disarm the population so he will take this opportunity. A disarmed polulation is easier to control and that will be foremost in his mind with economic collapse a possibility. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lock Stock & Barrel Posted December 15, 2012 Report Share Posted December 15, 2012 Changes to US law might make a difference to the lone lunatic who snaps and murders before suicide. Maybe the loon would just top himself if he didn't have instant access to firearms. It won't make a jot of difference to someone who plans such an outrage. As with assassins, you will never be able to stop the determined killer. But think what the outcome might have been had something as simple as his mother having the weapons in a locked gun safe to which her son (the killer) did not have access to the key... One thing is for sure, Obama wants to disarm the population so he will take this opportunity. A disarmed polulation is easier to control and that will be foremost in his mind with economic collapse a possibility. Err... that's actually a myth. And a contrived one at that. This is just one of a number of factual corrections offered by FACT CHECK.ORG on the lie that "Obama's coming for our guns!" when in fact, he isn't - in fact, Obama has been a far more gun-friendly legislator (as both Senator and President) than George W Bush ever was. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mikaveli Posted December 15, 2012 Report Share Posted December 15, 2012 As with assassins, you will never be able to stop the determined killer. But think what the outcome might have been had something as simple as his mother having the weapons in a locked gun safe to which her son (the killer) did not have access to the key... Exactly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bedwards1966 Posted December 15, 2012 Report Share Posted December 15, 2012 (edited) well how many serious shootings have happened since Dunblane a very small comparison compared to the USA ?? Changing the gun law seems to have worked here, don't get me wrong im a serious gun fanatic being an air rifle to even a cannon ! But enough is enough sometimes and time has shown its worked here so why not over in the USA . Changing the gun laws here has done no good whatsoever - you are delusional. Instead, gun crime seems to have increased, Tony Blair used it to help himself to power, and certificated shooters have more restrictions upon them. Dunblane would not have happened if the police had done their job properly. They had many reports about Thomas Hamilton, including complaints that he was a pedophile yet they ignored everything. They are the ones who are supposed to enforce the law, and they failed to do so, and as a result that tragedy was able to happen with legally held guns. We then had the Cumbria tradgedy where Derrick Bird used his legally held firearms to kill people. The police had very good reasons to prevent him having a certificate, yet once again they failed in their duties. Michael Atherton, who is less well known as it was only his family who he shot (i.e not a 'public' spree), was another where it appears the police failed to do apply the laws. All the legislation in the world means nothing when it's not applied correctly, and none of our gun laws seem to have helped prevent shootings here. Plus of course there have been enough with illegally held firearms, which are easily sourced anyway. As to this latest tragedy in America, it's far too soon to come to any conclusions. Yes things should be reviewed there, but not until all the facts are available. It may be that the shooters could have been prevented from having firearms by requiring them all to be stored securely, mental health checks etc, but we don't know anything yet, so it's impossible to come to any conclusions. Don't do what the government here managed, and quickly push through legislation which would not prevent the tragedy happening. I'm not sure how America could 'control' guns there. Unlike here where we happily roll over and get trampled into the dirt, the Americans will shout loud when their guns are under threat. I can't see them handing them, instead I can see them doing whatever they feel best to keep them - it could be very nasty. Edited December 15, 2012 by bedwards1966 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lock Stock & Barrel Posted December 15, 2012 Report Share Posted December 15, 2012 (edited) Changing the gun laws here has done no good whatsoever - you are delusional. Instead, gun crime seems to have increased, Tony Blair used it to help himself to power, and certificated shooters have more restrictions upon them. When in fact, gun crime in the UK has markedly decreased - as the latest figures prove. Article from July 2012's Economist: The decline of gun crime and also this from Gov't figures from March 2012 showing that same marked decrease in gun-related crime Edited December 15, 2012 by Lock Stock & Barrel Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Catweazle Posted December 15, 2012 Report Share Posted December 15, 2012 Err... that's actually a myth. And a contrived one at that. This is just one of a number of factual corrections offered by FACT CHECK.ORG on the lie that "Obama's coming for our guns!" when in fact, he isn't - in fact, Obama has been a far more gun-friendly legislator (as both Senator and President) than George W Bush ever was. I wrote that Obama would like to disarm the population, because a disarmed population is easier to control in a crisis Your link is from 2008, when the US wasn't in crisis. Not relevant. The proof of the pudding is in the eating, we'll see what he does. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lock Stock & Barrel Posted December 15, 2012 Report Share Posted December 15, 2012 (edited) I wrote that Obama would like to disarm the population, because a disarmed population is easier to control in a crisis You're absolutely correct: you did write that - alas, your error was in merely punting an unsupported opinion and offering no evidence whatsoever to back it up. Your link is from 2008, when the US wasn't in crisis. Not relevant. Err... you'll find that it is but one of many on that site, a large number from earlier this year, as this crackpot opinion that Obama wants to take the guns from US citizens is a perennial (if factually incorrect) whine from those who simply haven't done their homework. As for the US "being in crisis", she has faced far harder times than today's deficit issues - the 1929 Wall St Crash comes to mind; the 1973 oil crisis another; the shut down of Congress in 1996 due an inability on the part of the Newt Gingritch-led Republicans to agree a budget being yet another - so I wouldn't go flying off the handle or declaring a state of emergency or any imminent armed insurrection by its citizenry just yet. The proof of the pudding is in the eating, we'll see what he does. Well seeing as we've disproved your initial point, and proved that he has stated publicly, repeatedly, that he has no intention of taking anyone's guns, I think we can conclude that that pudding is merely another scare story punted by the paranoid. Edited December 15, 2012 by Lock Stock & Barrel Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lock Stock & Barrel Posted December 15, 2012 Report Share Posted December 15, 2012 Your link is from 2008, when the US wasn't in crisis. Not relevant. OK, just to put your mind at rest, here's one from June 2012: Q: Does the Obama administration intend to “force gun control and a complete ban on all weapons for U.S. citizens” through a United Nations treaty? A: No. The administration plans to negotiate a treaty to regulate the international export and import of weapons. It says that it won’t support any treaty that regulates the domestic transfer or ownership of weapons' date=' or that infringes on the Second Amendment.[/b'] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SneakyD Posted December 15, 2012 Report Share Posted December 15, 2012 Whether or not it would lessen this kind of tragedy, you have to admit that if you live in a society where you need armed guards in schools, something's going wrong! I agree with this 100% Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lock Stock & Barrel Posted December 15, 2012 Report Share Posted December 15, 2012 I agree with this 100% And on this point, at least, we are in four square agreement. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SneakyD Posted December 15, 2012 Report Share Posted December 15, 2012 (edited) Wrong. If you think that it is only by dent of armed teachers which prevents "the slaughter of its children", then you don't know much about life in Israel. Clearly. Why are their teachers armed then, is to prevent their children escaping? can you please point to any evidence where a teacher has ever shot and killed even one of their classroom charges in the US? You were the one that suggested that a teacher might 'go postal' if they were having a bad day. I merely offered a potential solution to this. What would suggest to protect America's schools? Edited December 15, 2012 by SneakyD Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lock Stock & Barrel Posted December 15, 2012 Report Share Posted December 15, 2012 (edited) Why are their teachers armed then, is to prevent their children escaping? Be honest, you've not really thought this through, have you? Teachers being armed in Israel is a last line of defence, a redoubt - if you've ever been to Israel (and I travel there about 8 times a year on business), you'd know that you can't swing a cat without hitting someone with a firearm (hotel receptionists, concierges, Mall-cops checking you when you enter a shopping centre, plain clothes-concealed-carrying street walkers 'just in case') - it's a militarised society (perhaps understandably, given their neighbours), and that's before you get the thousands of off-duty IDF personnel walking the street with slung M4s and M-16s - ditto holstered sidearms. All population centres have battalions of troops guarding the general vicinity in their efforts to ensure that that lone gun man or suicide bomber doesn't get through. I was even offered my own personal weapon there when, during the 2006 Lebanon War, I spent 28 days of the 32 days that it lasted. Bomb shelter routines, in-coming rockets, the monty. You were the one that suggested that a teacher might 'go postal' if they were having a bad day. I merely offered a potential solution to this. I think we can agree that bringing firearms into a classroom would not be ideal. Apart from the kick-back against such a move that the teaching fraternity in the US would undoubtedly offer, the moment you put a firearm in a place where there is the possibility that it might be misused you create the possibility of just such an eventuality. Added to which, if a teacher were "having a bad day", then them not having a gun removes the possibility of 20 dead children, as opposed to one or two kids merely getting a cuff round the ear and the teacher losing their job being the worst outcome. What would suggest to protect America's schools? As has been agreed, you'll never be able to prevent the determined wing-nut-gone-postal from killing. But then again, there's nothing to guarantee that, even with the best weapons' handling training on offer, that the shooter wouldn't have been able to drop any armed teacher before they were able to get off a round at him. New England, the place where this atrocity took place, is not, traditionally, a place where folks go postal - that particular medal goes to the southern US states so, like Dunblane, where there is not a history of such occurrences, armed security would have been (and I'm guessing here) not the norm, as there was no pedigree for its requirement. I suspect that they might now be re-evaluating that position. Edited December 15, 2012 by Lock Stock & Barrel Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Catweazle Posted December 15, 2012 Report Share Posted December 15, 2012 Well seeing as we've disproved your initial point, and proved that he has stated publicly, repeatedly, that he has no intention of taking anyone's guns, I think we can conclude that that pudding is merely another scare story punted by the paranoid. Firstly, when he says " I won't take your guns" he is speaking on a broad basis, he knows full well he will never be able to take all the guns. He also knows that gun control is a vote-loser for him. However, after previous tragedies he has promised to make changes. No changes have happened, but does this mean he deliberately lied, knowing full well that the gun-control lobbies would make a fuss about it ? Or does it mean that he wanted to make changes but couldn't ? I'm opting for the second option. I think he would like to make changes, an opinion possibly backed up by his rapid statement "we must make meaningful changes....", "regardless of politics...". Like I said, the proof of the pudding is in the eating. We'll see. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lock Stock & Barrel Posted December 15, 2012 Report Share Posted December 15, 2012 (edited) Firstly, when he says " I won't take your guns" he is speaking on a broad basis, he knows full well he will never be able to take all the guns. He also knows that gun control is a vote-loser for him. Thank you for proving my point. However, after previous tragedies he has promised to make changes. Really? Do you have qualified evidence from a reliable source (i.e. not the NRA or Fox 'News') to support this assertion? If so, please provide it. No changes have happened, but does this mean he deliberately lied, knowing full well that the gun-control lobbies would make a fuss about it ? Or does it mean that he wanted to make changes but couldn't ? Well seeing as you're guessing and making it up as you go, I must confess, it's pretty hard to make any rationale answer to that. Care to make a qualified point rather than dealing in mere conjecture? I'm opting for the second option. I think he would like to make changes, an opinion possibly backed up by his rapid statement "we must make meaningful changes....", "regardless of politics...". Ahh... so you think he would like to make changes? Might we asked based on what evidence - bearing in mind we've already demolished your previous assertion that "Obama would like to disarm the population"? And even if he were to attempt it, from your own Obama quotes above, he'd need to seek the agreement of Congress - and the chances of that happening are about as rare as finding a Chinese chef with a naturally ginger Afro - so again, it's just mere conjecture. Like I said, the proof of the pudding is in the eating. We'll see. Ahh.. the 'What Aboutery' conjecture - designed to carry on indefinitely any debate by merely adding, 'Ah, but what about...?' Good luck with that. Edited December 15, 2012 by Lock Stock & Barrel Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Livefast123 Posted December 15, 2012 Report Share Posted December 15, 2012 Dennis Webb by another alias............. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lock Stock & Barrel Posted December 15, 2012 Report Share Posted December 15, 2012 (edited) Dennis Webb by another alias............. Don't be a bell-end. At least have a point you can support. There are a number of shooters on this forum who can confirm you're talking garbage. Edited December 15, 2012 by Lock Stock & Barrel Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Catweazle Posted December 15, 2012 Report Share Posted December 15, 2012 (edited) I have to concede defeat on this one, it looks as if Obama didn't actually promise gun controls at all, he merely suggested that the matter should be investigated. I wonder if this time will be different, I think it may be. after the January 2011 massacre in Tucson, Arizona that left 6 dead and injured former U.S. Representative Gabrielle Giffords. At that time, Obama said he would release new steps for gun safety. Those steps have never been publicly issued. Going back to Obama’s 2008 presidential campaign before becoming president, he campaigned on wanting to continue the federal ban on assault weapons which had expired. The fact is that Obama has not presented any form of gun control since January 2009 when he took office. Edited December 15, 2012 by Catweazle Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lock Stock & Barrel Posted December 15, 2012 Report Share Posted December 15, 2012 I have to concede defeat on this one, it looks as if Obama didn't actually promise gun controls at all, he merely suggested that the matter should be investigated. I wonder if this time will be different, I think it may be. Wasn't looking to defeat you mate - you ran a good discussion. The reason why nothing will change in the US, regarding gun control, is simply that the US people (regardless of all the weeping, whaling and gnashing of teeth on this latest outrage), when it comes down to it, do not want change. This latest mass killing will be forgotten in the next few days and then it'll be business as usual. The NRA know this and that's why they keep quiet at such times, as that's all they have to do to achieve what they see as equilibrium. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lock Stock & Barrel Posted December 15, 2012 Report Share Posted December 15, 2012 I see you've edited your post above to add these two 'quotes': after the January 2011 massacre in Tucson, Arizona that left 6 dead and injured former U.S. Representative Gabrielle Giffords. At that time, Obama said he would release new steps for gun safety. Those steps have never been publicly issued. Going back to Obama’s 2008 presidential campaign before becoming president, he campaigned on wanting to continue the federal ban on assault weapons which had expired. The fact is that Obama has not presented any form of gun control since January 2009 when he took office. Do you have sources for them, or are they just opinions again? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Catweazle Posted December 15, 2012 Report Share Posted December 15, 2012 Wasn't looking to defeat you mate No problem, if I'm wrong I'm wrong, I should have checked sources better before writing. Quotes are from here: http://www.examiner.com/article/theater-shooting-reminds-america-of-obama-s-broken-gun-control-promises Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lock Stock & Barrel Posted December 15, 2012 Report Share Posted December 15, 2012 (edited) No problem, if I'm wrong I'm wrong, I should have checked sources better before writing. Quotes are from here: http://www.examiner....ontrol-promises Sincerely, thank you. Obama has only yesterday made comments, which you've seen in the press, about "regardless of politics" and "need for change" etc. These words are what is expected from a sitting president, along with "our hearts are broken..." etc. I'd be willing to bet that no change will come as a result of this latest shooting - and the federal gun ban on assault weapons was introduced by a previous president (Clinton) and yet Obama let them lapse and expire. Gun control in the US is a myth. There's no way round the 2nd Amendment - unless the US Congress votes and legislates otherwise with an amendment to the 2nd Amendment, it won't happen, as the majority of them (senators and congressmen) are in the paid pocket of the gun lobbies. Edited December 15, 2012 by Lock Stock & Barrel Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vince Green Posted December 15, 2012 Report Share Posted December 15, 2012 it won't happen, as the majority of them (senators and congressmen) are in the paid pocket of the gun lobbies. Thats the truth of it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lock Stock & Barrel Posted December 16, 2012 Report Share Posted December 16, 2012 Actually, this illustrates Obama's position guns quite nicely. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.