The Descent Bulletin Board
https://descentbb.net/
Honest question, do you spend time thinking about yourself in such a scenario? If so, are you the hero?woodchip wrote:Once you get beyond this demonstrably failed idealism, perhaps you can survive a real life scenario.
Yes, I own a 9mm pistol. I've been trained on how to use it for my own safety. I've also practiced and I can reliably hit the center of the target 100% of the time. Not in the same bullet hole mind you, but close enough to deal real damage if needed. But no, I don't have a license to carry, nor do I want one right now. Remember, I'm a menopausal, Bwaahaaahaaa.woodchip wrote: ↑Tue Feb 27, 2018 8:28 amYou own a pistol, are you licensed to carry it? Do you have any training in it's use? Shoot on a league, go to the range regularly? The simple fact that if you are licensed to carry compels you to get experience shooting your carry piece. At the very least TC get a CO2 pellet pistol to get the rudiments of shooting down. I recently bought a Crosman 2240 pistol in .22. The 2240 is highly modifiable and has good reviews. Get a pellet trap target box and you can shoot indoors.
Modern handguns with +P defensive ammo are hardly puny. Unless the target is wearing a good quality ballistic armor, he will go down as faster than being shot by the AR-15. I say that as the .223 round is used by the military as they wanted a round that would disable the enemy, forcing his fellow soldier to tend to him and potential make less enemy combatants available on the firing. Good theory crafting but I'm not sure how true this is.
The guard just goes to show why in the end it is up to the teacher as the final line of defense. Your liberal sensibilities will, in the end, only get you killed as people like you and slick seem to think the answer is a cell phone and calling for help. Once you get beyond this demonstrably failed idealism, perhaps you can survive a real life scenario.
However, I might trade in my father's old 1955 Browning auto shotgun and purchase a short-barreled shotgun just for home defense. Close quarters pray and spray. No need to worry about where the extraneous shot goes in the neighborhood.
Other than people like slick trying to imprint the "All Teachers" scenaro I know of no conservative who would want a teacher incapable of or not wanting to be armed in school to carry. So as vision correctly points out some teachers who agree to the training would be ALLOWED to carry in school. And lets look at a overview of what 18 states already have in place along with another 12 states considering a program for armed teachers. First off 80 hours a year of training is required. Now here is where slicks instance of racism gets knocked to the wayside. During those 80 hours of training the teacher trains along side the local cops who will be responding. As they train together the cops get to know and recognize the teacher irregardless of skin color. So if a incident happens the cops will see the teacher and if he has his firearm in hand, they will not shoot him by mistake. More likely ask him if he knows where the shooter is and then move on. So slick, nice try on trying to paint a false image to further your ideology.vision wrote: ↑Tue Feb 27, 2018 4:06 pmI just want to point out a few things out that rarely get talked about because the average gun rhetoric is too extreme.woodchip wrote: ↑Tue Feb 27, 2018 8:28 amYou own a pistol, are you licensed to carry it? Do you have any training in it's use? Shoot on a league, go to the range regularly? The simple fact that if you are licensed to carry compels you to get experience shooting your carry piece...
The guard just goes to show why in the end it is up to the teacher as the final line of defense. Your liberal sensibilities will, in the end, only get you killed as people like you and slick seem to think the answer is a cell phone and calling for help. Once you get beyond this demonstrably failed idealism, perhaps you can survive a real life scenario.
First, conservatives aren't really calling for all teachers to have guns. The best argument I've heard is that there is already a certain percentage of teachers who own guns and have training, but laws exist preventing them from bringing a firearm to school. The question is, should we lift this restriction and would it have a net positive impact? The answer is not clear..
My first wife was a junior high teacher and what you post here vision, is absolutely true. Though as much as she regarded her students I'm not sure she wouldn't have found time for the training. As far as the problem not being solved by guns, we have had ample time and too many cases where not having a gun didn't work. I think it is time we try the oppositevision wrote: ↑Tue Feb 27, 2018 4:06 pmSecond, arming all teachers is so impractical as to be impossible. Sure there are enough guns in existence, but who pays for the training and insurance? Also, aside from the fact some teachers don't want guns, many who do don't have time to train. Every teacher I know works a crazy amount of hours in a day, and "summer breaks" are often filled with more school work. On top of all that, not everyone who is a good teacher will also be good with a firearm. It's a different skill that needs development and many simply don't have an interest. And finally, teaching is a job that fundamentally shouldn't involve risking your life. If it does, the problem is not one solved with guns..
Maybe yes, maybe no. When I see a student shooting up a school where he knows some of the teachers are armed, then I can agree with you. And reducing the body count will be appreciated by the parents of the students who didn't get killed.vision wrote: ↑Tue Feb 27, 2018 4:06 pmThird, armed teachers won't prevent school shootings. The best case scenario is that a teacher reduces the body count by intervening. That's not really a solution. School shooters often kill themselves or get killed during the rampage and from what I can tell none of them have expectations of surviving. Arming teachers simply changes the shooter's plan of attack..
Again I have to agree. Problem is programs like the "Promise" scheme where schools go out of their way to avoid harming a students record because of bad behavior and secondarily the school didn't want large numbers of expelled or disciplined students on their records as it might adversely affect the funding from Promise. The system in Fl. case so hideously failed that one has to wonder why. Lets focus of the real causes here before we trot out the same tired "Ban the Guns" rhetoric as all it does is...well nothing, as demonstrated repeatedly over the years. Also this FBI stat list shows the number of people killed by rifles is way less than hand guns, knives or even fists. Maybe we should ban those first.vision wrote: ↑Tue Feb 27, 2018 4:06 pmSince arming teachers is not a solution by any measure, it is simply an idea for legislators to bargain with. I'm going Ok with experimenting with allowing currently licensed teachers to carry in school if, and only if, there is meaningful legislation to address the type of community building that helps identify and treat potential shooters. That same community building can carry over to treat other issues like gang violence and delinquency.
Wow slick, what a steaming made up pile of dog poo. Care to give a link on these stats and why the cops are not sitting behind a desk. Here, let me post a link that shows the actual rules to be judged qualified to carry their weapon:callmeslick wrote: ↑Tue Feb 27, 2018 2:13 pm NY City keeps stats. Trained cops in live fire situations hit the target 18% of the time. Just the random spray of bullets we need to allow teachers to participate in around my grandkids, right? Woody, you are a parrot for complete assholes. Give it a rest.
http://www.clest.org/Websites/clest/images/handgun.pdfAll shooters must score a minimum of 80% to pass their course of fire or meet higher standard established by their agency.
You're totally ignoring a couple of big factors woody, heart rate, adrenaline levels, stress, keeping up with any training (most don't and getting rusty is the norm) and suddenly being faced with the prospect of having to shoot at an actual human being. Their heart rate and adrenaline skyrockets, putting them under sudden and extreme stress, so any and all training quickly goes out the window. Slick's right about New York's live fire stats, the hit rates tank when police officers enter into a shooting situation. New York listed a hit rate of just 17.4 percent in 2005 and an overall hit rate of 34 percent, 43 percent if they were firing from one to six feet away. Less than HALF even at that range. In fact, they hit animals, usually dogs, with a better hit rate, 55 percent. It shows you that there's a deeper emotional component to shooting at an actual human being than an animal or inanimate target. In fact, when I'm personally under extreme stress, my hands and body will shake. I'm willing to guarantee that my gun range hit rate would plummet and I'm betting yours would too, because you're human and react to stress like every other human does, badly.woodchip wrote: ↑Fri Mar 02, 2018 9:05 amAll I can say slick is your inability to post anything remotely accurate regarding firearm is either deliberate or you are so brainwashed about firearms that you are demonstrably incompetent. Try doing a google search before replying...at least I think you can do that competently.
Anyone bother to notice that slick's "another angry white nationalist with a gun" topic title is totally factually FALSE?callmeslick wrote: ↑Sat Mar 03, 2018 7:39 am there's also a big difference between calling my stats wrong, and just being a lying ★■◆● for the point of attacking me. Woody, feel free to apologize whenever you find a soul.
Oh really? Despite all the fake instagram accounts created AFTER the shootings, nothing vanishes forever on the net and evidence has a habit of resurfacing like a rotting dead fish. There is evidence Cruz was a racist, an anti-Semite and a proud Trump MAGA hat wearer.Nightshade wrote: ↑Sun Mar 04, 2018 1:57 pmAnyone bother to notice that slick's "another angry white nationalist with a gun" topic title is totally factually FALSE?callmeslick wrote: ↑Sat Mar 03, 2018 7:39 am there's also a big difference between calling my stats wrong, and just being a lying ★■◆● for the point of attacking me. Woody, feel free to apologize whenever you find a soul.
Tunnelcat wrote: ↑Sun Mar 04, 2018 3:01 pmOh really? Despite all the fake instagram accounts created AFTER the shootings, nothing vanishes forever on the net and evidence has a habit of resurfacing like a rotting dead fish. There is evidence Cruz was a racist, an anti-Semite and a proud Trump MAGA hat wearer.Nightshade wrote: ↑Sun Mar 04, 2018 1:57 pmAnyone bother to notice that slick's "another angry white nationalist with a gun" topic title is totally factually FALSE?callmeslick wrote: ↑Sat Mar 03, 2018 7:39 am there's also a big difference between calling my stats wrong, and just being a lying ★■◆● for the point of attacking me. Woody, feel free to apologize whenever you find a soul.
https://www.snopes.com/did-shooters-ins ... -maga-hat/
https://www.cnn.com/2018/02/16/us/exclu ... index.html
Plus, from my post above, he definitely had carved swastikas on his ammunition magazines. So did he do that because he only loved images of swastikas or was it actually symbolic for the guy?
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/swastikas- ... olas-cruz/